Standing Law Still Broken

The U.S. law of standing basically states that even if the government or a government official is blatantly violating a law that benefits everyone, that unless someone can show how the violation of the law affects them in a way distinct from the way if affects taxpayers or voters or citizens, in general, that no one can enforce the law.

Most mainstream jurists manage to find a way to find standing in cases of clear violations of the law, but the ultraconservatives in the U.S. Supreme Court have used this doctrine to allow Trump to keep building the White House Ballroom in gross violation of the relevant law. The Chief Justice and the three liberal justices voted to prevent him from his clearly illegal actions, but were outvoted 5-4 on a standing argument.

No other sensible system of public law takes this approach. Standing was a rule invented for litigation between private parties that has never worked well in the public law setting.

The Executive-Judiciary Interface In Undermining The Rule Of Law

One of the most distinctive features of Trump 2.0 has been the breakdown of the rule of law. The administration has routinely ignored the law and settled interpretation of existing law in a wide variety of domains.

It has enacted illegal tariffs, it has denied due process to immigrants, it has deported immigrants to countries to which they have no connection, it has illegally impounded Congressionally appropriated funds, it has conducted the Iran war without complying with the war powers act, it has illegally and in violation of international law bombed suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and killed survivors of its attacks, it has unlawfully meddled in state election processes, it has fired government officials whom Congressionally enacted statutes don't allow it to fire, it has pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, it has corruptly allowed officials to benefit personally in monetary terms from their offices, it has openly admitted to denying FEMA disaster relief based upon how states have voted in recent elections, it has brought sham criminal prosecutions of political opponents, and so on.

Trump 1.0 was odious, incompetent, dishonest, and violated some political norms and legal rules, but shows much less disregard for the rule of law and for well-established political and legal norms.

What changed? How will that affect future administrations?

A lot of the change can be fairly attributed to the courts, especially lower court judges appointed by Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court, which attained a conservative majority and an ultra-conservative plurality under Trump 1.0, consistently letting Trump circumvent rulings against him personally, and against his administration, made by lower courts and non-Trump appointed judges (including many judges appointed by Republican Presidents in prior administrations).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions to grant Trump expansively Presidential immunity from criminal liability for his official or arguably official acts (even if they are clearly ultra vires), and to interpret the insurrection clause out of the 14th Amendment, were some of the earliest and most damaging of its steps down this path.

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't given Trump a complete blank check in Trump 2.0 to be a dictator, largely because the non-ultra conservative justices and the liberal justices on the Court has sometimes formed coalitions to block the ultra-conservative agenda. But this hasn't been consistent enough to discourage mischief in the executive branch.

Of course, the Republican controlled Congress also hasn't pro-actively intervened, but as some justices on the Supreme Court such as Gorsuch are starting to acknowledge, while Congress has significant power to deny funds to the President, Congress has very little capacity to pro-actively contradict or restrain a President inclined to ignore it.

The relative irrelevance of Congress has also been illustrated by Trump 2.0's heavy reliance on executive orders to act, rather than Congressional legislation, despite the fact that Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate, and despite the fact that past precedents have pretty well established that the filibuster in the Senate is a voluntary restraint that the Republican Senate majority has afforded to the minority, and not a legally binding barrier to action, and despite the tight hold that Trump has acquired over the Republican party, effectively turning it into a MAGA party.

So, the existence of a GOP trifecta has, in practice, been less important to the disappearance of the rule of law than judicial and especially U.S. Supreme Court, connivance in facilitating unilateral illegal actions by President Trump (in a highly partisan fashion that it did not afford to President Biden).

Indeed, if anything, the Republican majorities in Congress have been more even handed in protecting the limited rights of the minority Democrats in Congress on a non-partisan basis, than SCOTUS has been in its rulings, many of which simply can't be explained by anything but partisan bias.

Colorado's State Bivens Law

Colorado's General Assembly has enacted a state law authorizing suits for money damages against federal, state, and local officials violating federal constitutional rights in connection with civil immigration enforcement, because the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens (a U.S. Supreme Court case which created a federal common law remedy in the form of a private civil action for damages for certain violations of federal constitutional rights by federal officials) to do so. The bill has not yet been signed by the Governor, but he has not publicly threatened to veto the bill either.

Ideally, it wouldn't have been limited to civil immigration enforcement, which may be the provision of the law which makes it most vulnerable to being held unconstitutional, as immigration law is a purely federal function, but it isn't at all clear that narrowing this law beyond its maximum constitutional scope invalidates it, and there is quite a bit of law (outlined in Section 1 of the bill) which supports the conclusion that this mostly unused check on misconduct by federal official is constitutional.

The limitation of the law to civil immigration enforcement, however, does limit room to complain that the waiver of various immunities would do serious mischief to the ordinary actions of law enforcement in the state at the state and local level.

The bill's full and final text is below:

Senate Bill 26-05:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 

SECTION 1.  Legislative declaration. 

(1)  The general assembly finds and declares that: 

(a)  Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States supreme court has held, in cases such as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and Murray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that federal officials may be liable in damages for violations of federal laws; 

(b)  In later 19th century cases as well, the United States supreme court held that federal officials could be liable for damages even for reasons relating to but beyond the lawful scope of federal duties, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115 (1851), and in particular that state courts possessed jurisdiction to consider such damages claims, Teal v. Felton, 53 U.S. 284 (1852); 

(c)  The United States supreme court has long held that federal employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply because they are federal employees. For example, in Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment", and in Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and employees are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law". 

(d)  Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials accountable for legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963), "[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law"; 

(e)  When the United States supreme court recognized a federal law cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that cause of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law remedies. Even one of the dissenting justices in Bivens noted the ongoing role of state courts, writing, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress and the legislatures of the States". 

(f)  More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government [. . .] which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States", 28 U.S.C. sec. 2679. The prime sponsor of legislation amending the federal "Tort Claims Act" to provide for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, "We make special provisions here to make clear that the more controversial issue of constitutional torts is not covered by this bill. If you are accused of having violated someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it", 134 Cong. Rec. 15963 (1988). 

(g)  In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action in Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the United States supreme court observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of government to fashion damages remedies; 

(h)  In its most recently completed term, the United States supreme court declined, in Martin v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1689 (2025), to extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional criminal law context; 

(i)  Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the United States has never been and can never be "necessary and proper" to the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the meaning of article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States constitution; and 

(j)  In enacting this act, the Colorado general assembly affirms its longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing forum in its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations. 

SECTION 2.  In Colorado Revised Statutes add 13-20-1302 as follows: 

13-20-1302.  Civil action for violation of constitutional rights during immigration enforcement - relief - attorney fees - time limit to commence action - definition. 

(1)  A PERSON WHO HAS THEIR RIGHTS THAT ARE GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VIOLATED BY ANOTHER PERSON WHO, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LAW, IS PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION. A PERSON FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHILE PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL  IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS LIABLE TO THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED FOR LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RELIEF OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 

(2) (a)  IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, A COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF. IN ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A COURT SHALL DEEM A PLAINTIFF TO HAVE PREVAILED IF THE PLAINTIFF'S SUIT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR OR SIGNIFICANT CATALYST IN OBTAINING THE RESULTS SOUGHT BY THE LITIGATION. 

(b)  WHEN A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF A DEFENDANT, THE COURT MAY AWARD REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES TO THE DEFENDANT FOR DEFENDING ANY CLAIMS THE COURT FINDS FRIVOLOUS. 

(3)  TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983, A GRANT OF IMMUNITY TO A DEFENDANT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY; OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY; STATUTORY IMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE "COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT", ARTICLE 10 OF TITLE 24; OR COMMON LAW IMMUNITY, DOES NOT APPLY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. 

(4)  AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" MEANS AN ACTION TO INVESTIGATE, QUESTION, DETAIN, TRANSFER, OR ARREST A PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION LAW. "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ACTION COMMITTED BY A PEACE OFFICER WHO IS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PEACE OFFICER'S DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. 

(5)  PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-80-102, A CIVIL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES. 

SECTION 3.  In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-80-102, amend (1)(k); and add (1)(l) as follows: 13-80-102.  General limitation of actions - two years.  The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: 

(k)  All actions brought under AND PURSUANT TO section 13-21-109(2) [ed. the bad check statute]; 

(l)  AN ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-20-1302. 

SECTION 4.  Severability. If any provision of this act or the application of this act to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable. 

SECTION 5.  Appropriation. (1)  For the 2026-27 state fiscal year, $125,604 is appropriated to the department of law. This appropriation is from the legal services cash fund created in section 24-31-108 (4), C.R.S., from revenue received from the department of personnel that is continuously appropriated to the department of personnel from the risk management fund created in section 24-30-1510 (1)(a), C.R.S. The appropriation to the department of law is based on an assumption that the department of law will require an additional 0.5 FTE. To implement this act, the department of law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the department of personnel.

SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state institutions.

Brainstorming Possible Public Law Reforms

There are important gaps in our public law system:

* If we are to reject taxpayer standing, voter standing, and citizen standing, we need to empower someone to enforce violations of the law that harm the general public, but not any specific person differently from any other, like many forms of public corruption.

* Judges should have the power to remove government officials who defy court orders and commit serious breaches of the public trust from office, certainly, officials who are not elected officials.

* There needs to be a parallel to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for federal officials and agents (i.e. people who act under color of federal law) that is more robust than the federal common law Bivens remedy, which doesn't cover all federal officials or all federal rights.

* The unitary executive theory adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court is just a pure political trick, with no historical basis. INS v. Chadha (1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that legislative vetos in duly enacted laws were unconstitutional was also a bad decision.

* The gutting of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment by SCOTUS was a horrible legal decision not supported by any fair reading of the document.

* The grant of immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts of the President was a very bad idea. Granting both civil immunity and criminal immunity should be a matter of common law or statutory law that can be changed by Congress, not a matter of constitutional law.

* Granting unfettered pardon power to the President now looks like it was a bad idea on the part of the Founders. Notably, a great many U.S. states do not afford the same power to their Governors.

* Requiring a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress to override a Presidential veto greatly upsets the proper balance of power between Congress and the President. Let the President veto legislation that unwittingly contains a bad provision which the President noticed but Congress did not. But let them reaffirm and override it by a simple majority of both houses. Part of the big picture problem in the United States is that it is far too hard to legislate, so the courts and regulations adopted by the executive have to fill the gap.

* Making the respective houses of Congress the judges of their own elections was a bad idea.

* The impeachment power is too weak and too political. And, it should be easier and less political to remove a President (or any other public official) for disability.

* A proposal is pending in Colorado to remove absolute immunity for prosecutors from civil liability, which as drafted I don't support, even though I can somewhat sympathize with the motivations for it. Judges also have absolute immunity. I think that the solution is to make a finding of professional or judicial misconduct or criminal conduct have the collateral consequence of forfeiting absolute immunity, with the statute of limitations for a private civil action to impose liability in those cases running from the time that there is a final criminal conviction or of professional or judicial misconduct. If a judge convicts you of a crime and sentences you to a private prison due to a bribe from a private prison investor, and the judge is convicted of that, the judge should have civil liability to you.

* An alternative to the fault based approach of § 1983 and Bivens for civil rights violations, would be to instead adopt the takings jurisprudence that applies when the government takes property without fair compensation. Rather than being perpetrator focused, if someone is deprived of their civil rights, they would be entitled to just, compensatory only, compensation, by the government under whose color the deprivation occurred, without regard to the intent of the person violating the right, and without individual liability on the part of the agents who participated in the deprivation of civil rights. Indemnification and defense mandates of public employees basically gets you to a similar place in most cases, but denies any relief when someone is deprived of life or liberty wrongfully, if no one individual intentional or almost intentionally violates their rights (e.g. if the injuries or destroyed property or other harm arose from mere negligence or mistakes, or due to broken systems rather than malicious individuals). Thus, if you were incarcerated and later found to be innocent, or incurred attorneys' fees defending a criminal case only to be acquitted, you would be entitled to compensation from the government that brought the charges and incarcerated you, without regard to how you were wrongfully convicted or were charged with a crime for which you were not convicted. Qualified immunity and intent requirements would be much less problematic if § 1983 lawsuits and Bivens actions were secondary remedies to punish individual bad apples (and included, for example disqualification from serving in law enforcement for serious willful wrongdoing), while municipal liability for compensatory relief only was available much more easily.

* Many countries vest prosecutorial power in the judiciary rather than in the executive branch, and many states have an attorney general or DA who is independently elected to create a built in special prosecutor. There is wisdom in depriving an elected executive branch politician like a President or Governor or Mayor from having absolute control over enforcement of the criminal laws.

* Colorado has the Colorado Open Records Act and the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act to allow pre-litigation discovery of incidents that might give rise to civil liability on the part of public officials, which makes Warne v. Hall, which prevents people from suing first and getting discovery to determine if they really have a claim, by adopting the federal standards of Twombly and Iqbal for pleading civil actions more tolerable than in other contexts. It isn't clear to me that FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act) at the federal level, provides an equally effective tool to bring claims against federal public officials.

* While allowing all U.S. District Court judges to impose national injunctions can be problematic, mostly because it allows for forum shopping, it is also deeply problematic to allow the federal government to re-litigate issues that it has lost in other jurisdictions over and over again, which is just reverse forum shopping. Maybe national injunction power needs to be reserved for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

* Felons should be able to vote. But maybe they shouldn't be able to run for public office without some process establishing that they were reformed or just the passage of time of a certain number of years after they fully served their sentence.

* A statutory obligation for all law enforcement officers to be unmasked and clearly display their badges subject to narrow exceptions that would have to be authorized much like a search warrant on a case by case basis, wouldn't be a bad law.

* We need a better structure to limit the use of military force and covert operations by intelligence agencies to legally authorized act, that doesn't simply give the President absolute power.

* No President should have the power to unilaterally impose any taxes, including tariffs.

Structural Problems With The Living Constitution

As interpreted the U.S. Constitution has various problems:

* The insurrection clause was gutted by making it not self-executing.

* Presidential immunity from crimes was a horrible mistake.

* No one has standing to pursue too many violations of the law, such as the emoluments clause, the bar on increasing Congressional compensation, some kinds of religious establishment (e.g. not enforcement the ban on political action by religious groups).

* The pardon power is too easily abused.

* Limiting campaign finance by corporations in a partisan neutral way is prohibited (although Citizens United is less of a problem than it is given credit for being IMHO). 

* Term limits for Congress would be good.

* The filibusters has done more harm than good.

* Gerrymandering is an intractable problem and the first past the post system also leads to spoiler effects and a two party system instead of a multiparty system.

* Grounds for impeachment are too feeble and impeachment is too hard to accomplish for genuine crimes.

* The veto power is too strong, undermining Congress.

* The electoral college has proven to be a bad idea.

* The Senate is too distorting.

* The Second Amendment is a bad idea.

* Treaties are too often found to be not self-executing.

* Treaties are not subordinate to domestic laws.

* Given Congress control over election disputes in their own houses was a bad idea. Their roster should be out of their control.

* The unitary executive theory is incredibly harmful and should be actively overruled. The ban on legislative vetos is less of a big deal but also deeply problematic.

* The 25th Amendment on Presidential disability was a good idea, but was executed poorly.

* It should not be possible to be President as your first political position. Prior statewide office, a cabinet post, a top generalship, or service in Congress should be required first.

* The franchise should be affirmatively defined.

Not All Hope Is Lost (Yet)!

Keep fighting!

Every week (there are rare days of respite) there is news so bad that I vacillate between outrage and despair over the future of our country.

On the other hand, while we have plummeted into a less free semi-democracy, and plenty of irrevocable damage has been done, we aren't yet beyond a point of no return.

The government shutdown demonstrates that Congress can do something. And, with the "nuclear option" well-established in the U.S. Senate now, the fact that the filibuster hasn't be abrogated to end the shutdown means that there is at least some tacit dissatisfaction with the administration among some Republicans in Congress, even if they are too cowardly to translate that into a roll call vote against the President.

While SCOTUS has frequently shut down lower court checks on Trump's assault on the rule of law, the lower federal courts and litigation of blue states has slowed the process down and put serious friction in the way of his bid to become a dictator.

Attempted military occupations of L.A., D.C., Chicago, and Portland (OR), have had far less shock and awe that Trump hoped. His birthday parade flopped and his rally of generals and admirals likewise demonstrated that while the military may reluctantly obey their commander in chief, that he does not have firm control of, or the loyal and enthusiastic support of, the military.

Trump's aggressive secret police style ICE tactics have undermined public backing for his immigration policies, which were a key factor in getting him and the Republicans in Congress who only have a razor thin majority as it is in the House and in the Senate, elected.

Now that the rich have gotten their tax breaks, they don't need him nearly so badly any more, and are shifting to worrying about whether his bad economic policies will deny them any profits to evade taxes on at all.

We are thirteen months away from the midterm elections, at a time when Trump's popularity has plummeted to record lows and where Democrats are vastly over performing in special vacancy elections. GOP gerrymanders are getting a response from Blue state counter-gerrymanders. And, the cost the GOP risks when it grasps for more Republican districts is that those districts may become less safe and flip as public opinion turns against Trump (primarily among disappointed Republicans and independents who voted for Trump).

It is dim, but there is still some light at the end of the tunnel.

A Non-Constitutional Revolution

The Founders in their ignorance, made the U.S. Constitution extremely hard to amend. This post is a quick recap of some of the more transformative way our constitutional and political order could be remade without constitutional amendments.

Disposition Of U.S. Territory Outside U.S. States

* Admit the District of Columbia, which has a population of roughly 679,000, as a U.S. state (once this was done, repealing the 23rd amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gives the District of Columbia three electoral votes would be easily passed).

* Require Puerto Rico, which has a population of roughly 3.2 million, to choose between independence and becoming a U.S. state. Deprived of an option to continue its current Commonwealth status, it would choose statehood.

* Grant statehood to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has a population of approximately 104,000.

* Return the Guantanamo Naval Base to Cuba.

* Admit Guam and the Northern Mariana Island as a single new U.S. state (they are basically contiguous) with a population of approximately 221,000.

* Transfer American Samoa with a population of 44,000 to the adjacent sovereign country of Samoa, if it will accept it. Anyone dissatisfied with this could migrate to the United States and retain their citizenship.

* Collectively, this would mean that there would be 108 seats in the U.S. Senate (excluding the U.S. Vice-President's role as a tie breaker) and that there are no permanently inhabited U.S. territories that are not within U.S. states.

Congress

* Expand the U.S. House from 435 seats plus six non-voting delegates to a fixed 991 seats with no non-voting delegates. This would mean that there would be roughly 340,000 people per average seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (compared to a current average of about 790,000 people per seat), so only the Virgin Islands would have more house seats than the number it would be entitled to without a minimum of one seat per state rule, and even then, only by about a factor of three less than the average. This would also increase the size of the Electoral College to 999 electors (with the four new U.S. states), would greatly reducing the risk of a tie vote in the Electoral College (since it is an odd number), and would roughly cut in half the benefit that small states have relative to large states in the Electoral College. The number of U.S. House seats would not be changed if a state were allowed to split into more than one state or was merged with another state.

* Enact a statute requiring U.S. states with more than one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to elect those seats in a party list proportional representation system (with each party's list determined in primary elections held in advance of the election). States with 50 seats or more would be required divide themselves into two or more regions with a number of seats proportional to the region's population of at least 20 seats and not more than 50 seats each. Currently, those states would be California (98 seats) with 2 to 4 regions, Texas (90 seats) with 2 to 4 regions, Florida (67 seats) with 2 to 3 regions, and New York (57 seats) with 2 regions. Smaller population states would be "at large". This would end gerrymandering of all kinds and would make the federal government a multi-party democracy. Doing this for Congressional delegations on a state by state level rather than nationally, would eliminate the need for a constitutional amendment, would de facto create a minimum threshold that would be much higher than it would be in a national proportional representation election, and would keep the states in charge of election administration.

* Enact a statute requiring candidates for U.S. House in states with just one representative (probably only the Virgin Islands and Guam), and for U.S. Senate, to win a majority of the vote to be elected in a general election and to hold a runoff election of the two two candidates if no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round. This would largely end spoiler effects as the shift in the House to what would become a multi-party system would increase the likelihood non-majority first round results.

* End the filibuster and Senatorial holds in the U.S. Senate.

Presidential Elections and Disability

* Require states to allocate their electoral votes proportionately to each candidate's popular vote, rather than by a winner take all method for a whole state, or by Congressional district.

* Pass a law implementing Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution (concerning Presidential disability), to create a Presidential disability commission in connection with the language giving "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers or the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may be law provide" the authority to determine that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and to keep that determination in force pending a Congressional determination of the question if the President disputes it. This commission might be made up the active judges, collectively, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and would have subpoena power in connection with carrying out its duties in this capacity, and would act on the Petition of the Vice President delivered under seal to the clerk of that court.

Qualifications For Public Office

* Enact a law implementing the insurgency disqualification from office in the 14th Amendment (or on any other ground) allowing any court or tribunal with jurisdiction over election administration to determine this by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil action, and allowing states courts and U.S. District Courts from a state where the official was elected to determine this after an election or appointment. For the President and Vice President, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would have exclusive jurisdiction after they were elected (and even before they were sworn in). For federal appointed officials, the U.S. District Court with jurisdiction over the place where the official's primary office address is located would have exclusive jurisdiction. For state and local appointed officials, the state courts of general jurisdiction and U.S. District Courts with jurisdiction over the place where the official's primary office address is located would have exclusive jurisdiction.

Election Administration 

* Restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act expanding the protections historically applied only in places with a history of discrimination to the entire country.

* Create a right to have a state ID issued free of charge at some government office within their county at least every five years, with replacement costs limited to the actual direct cost of preparing a new ID between times. Automatically register anyone who is a citizens with a state ID or driver's license to vote. 

* Allow citizenship for voting purpose to be proven by means including any record of a previous voter registration, a passport, an expired passport, a birth certificate, a naturalization document, a tribal membership, a Social Security number, a marriage certificate to a U.S. citizen, or an affidavit establishing facts necessary to prove U.S. citizenship.

* Establish a right to an absentee ballot without proof of need for any registered voter, if a mail-in ballot is not otherwise made available to them.

* Encourage states to reduce the voting age in federal elections to sixteen years old.

* Classify people who are incarcerated as residents of their domicile immediately prior to their incarceration for purposes of state and local redistricting and for census purposes.

* Allow U.S. citizens who have no previous domicile in any U.S. state as residents of the U.S. state of their choice for purposes of federal elections.

* Prohibit election administration by elected officials (partisan or not), and also by partisan political appointees for whom one party controls the highest governing body of the election administration agency.

Courts

* Pack the court. Add another seven justices to the U.S. Supreme Court to end the distortions arising from having a 6-3 ultraconservative and hyper-conservative majority there. This should be done before any of the rest of this agenda is enacted.

* Establish criminal penalties that include disqualification from office for ethics violations by U.S. Supreme Court judges and other judges, with special venue provisions.

* Repeal the general federal diversity jurisdiction statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As a result, federal court diversity jurisdiction would be allowed only in very specialized cases like class actions and cases where the parties claim ownership of land under the laws of two different states.

* Repeal the general federal question statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This would end federal court jurisdiction over most lawsuits arising under federal law between private parties outside some very specific circumstances such as civil rights, election laws, intellectual property, and bankruptcy cases. The biggest impact of this would be to limit employment discrimination lawsuits to state court.

* Abolish the federal Article I immigration courts and give the U.S. District Courts exclusive jurisdiction over all immigration cases.

* Create a specialized national U.S. District Court for Indian Country which would have jurisdictions from multiple venues in cases where the U.S. District Courts currently have jurisdiction (i.e. felonies committed in Indian territory) and over other civil matters of Indian law, from which appeals would be taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

* Statutorily end qualified immunity to lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

* End a law parallel to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of civil rights under color of federal law, thus codifying and expanding the scope of Bivens actions.

* Establish vicarious liability for the employers of government officials or contractors held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or its new federal counterpart.

* Enact a federal law entitling someone to relief in the form of compensatory money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief from governmental entities that deprive someone of a constitutional or federal statutory right, even in the absence of fault or an intent to do so, including any deprivation of liberty arising from pre-conviction or post-conviction incarceration from someone who was wrongfully convicted, either due to procedural violations giving rise to the conviction or due to their innocence of the charges giving rise to their conviction.

* Enact a law creating a private right of action to seek injunctive relief enforcing the Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits the use of the federal military to enforce laws domestically) in the appropriate U.S. District Court, to any person impacted by it or to any governmental entity within whose territory military personnel are used for this purpose, with expedited proceedings.

* Prohibit the activation and deployment of national guard troops in a state without the permission of its Governor, absent a notice to the Governor that troops will be deployed at least twenty-four hours in advance and a showing that law and order have collapsed to a point where civilian efforts are insufficient, or that an insurgency is in progress, or that the state is defying federal court orders. If a Governor contests this within twenty-four hours in the relevant U.S. District Court, this activation and deployment shall be stayed until an expedited hearing on the merits can be held to determine if the President has the authority to do so.

* Give U.S. District Court judges broad statutory authority to impose national injunctions against the U.S. federal government.

* Establish a judicial process required to claim the state secrets doctrine in an adversarial proceeding with a specially qualified bar of people having national security clearance at the time of their admission.

* Require an adversarial proceeding affording a personal with national security clearance with due process to revoke a national security clearance for more than five weeks (if this is not done, the temporary revocation would automatically expire).

* A U.S. District Court should be granted the authority to place any federal government agency whose senior officer has defied a court order to place that agency under court receivership, and to remove that government official from office, until a replacement who acknowledges the authority of the court and personally commits to obey that court order can be appointed. 

* Prohibit "bounty" laws that allow someone who would otherwise have no standing to bring a civil action to sue someone for a fine that enforces a state law (which are designed to circumvent judicial review of such laws).

Immigration Laws

* Immediately and automatically grant U.S. citizenship to all legal permanent residents of the U.S. (i.e. green card holders) and to all U.S. nationals who are not U.S. citizens. Allow anyone qualified to get a green card now to immediately get U.S. citizenship.

* Immediately and automatically grant U.S. citizenship to the spouse of any U.S. citizen.

* Grant automatic U.S. citizenship to any member of any recognized Native American tribe, regardless of place of birth, in accordance with the membership rules of the tribe.

* Grant citizenship at birth to a child anyone who is a U.S. citizen, or is serving in the U.S. military at the time of conception or birth. Proof of paternity may be established from the DNA records of the U.S. military kept for people serving in the U.S. military for post-humous identification purposes without the consent of the service member alleged to be a parent (or from a comparison to the DNA of all U.S. service members if the identity of the service member is not known).

* Establish a ten year statute of limitations from first entry into the U.S. (even if interrupted by period abroad of less than one year at a time) on deportations, and allow anyone for whom the statute of limitations has passed to apply for U.S. citizenship on that basis without any civics and English language test.

* Make a passport available free of charge a first time and every time it expires to every U.S. citizen.

* Eliminate authority to denaturalize someone for fraud in the immigration process for any reason, and replace that with criminal penalties for doing so that do not deprive someone of their U.S. citizenship.

* Allow a visa to be revoked after clearing an immigration checkpoint upon entry to the U.S. only with a civil action filed by the United States government in a U.S. District Court at which a valid legal basis to do so, that is not unduly vague and does not violate constitutional rights such as the right to free speech, is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

* Allow someone with a valid visa who is denied entry to the U.S. at an immigration checkpoint to obtain an award of money damages and injunctive relief if the denial of entry is without probable cause to do so, and to obtain injunctive relief reinstating the visa with no right of immigration officials to deny entry if entry is denied with probable cause but the articulated probable cause concern is later overcome. A person with a valid visa who is denied entry could elect to litigate the matter either from a temporary detention center near the place of entry, or from a U.S. embassy in another country such as the country from which they arrived.

* Prohibit deportation of someone, even when valid grounds exist to deport them, to a country where the person is not a national without their consent.

* Establish by statute (regardless of any constitutionally permissible alternatives) that probable cause that someone is deportable is requires to detain someone for immigration violations and that no one may be deported for any reason without notice and a hearing in an Article III court.

* State and local elected officials with immigration detention facilities located in their government's territory, and members of Congress from any state, shall have the right to enter and inspect an immigration detention facility and record by any meaning the people there, what the detainees have to say, and the conditions of the facility, and to demand responses from any person employed there to their questions about the facility, the authority for operating the facility, and the status of the people in the facility.

* The location and status of everyone detained for immigration purposes shall be available to the public.

* Immigration officials and any other private or public person working with them or on their behalf on on their authority shall have a duty to immediately release anyone detained for immigration purposes who presents to them proof that they are U.S. citizens or have a valid visa that has not been revoked by a court. 

Health Care

* Expand Medicare to everyone (without requiring any proof of eligibility), financing it with an increased Medicare payroll tax rate and an Obamacare tax on investment income at the same rate as for self-employed persons. Failure to make a required copayment would not be a basis for denying care but would give rise to an unsecured debt that could be discharged in bankruptcy. Convert VA Hospitals to non-profit independent hospitals financed with Medicare. Repeal Medicaid. End private for profit insurance Medicare providers. Reduce all employee health benefits to Medicare supplemental plans. Require Medicare supplemental plan providers to use standardized claim forms with providers and insureds to simplify provider paperwork.

* End lawsuits seeking to recover the costs of medical care paid for by Medicare brought by any party but the Medicare subrogation division in each state, which could bring subrogation lawsuits in state court to recover medical costs caused by tortious conduct when it determined that it was cost effective to do so.

* Expand Medicare to include long term nursing home care with a deductible not to exceed the median rent in the metropolitan area (or outside of metropolitan areas, in the rural area of that state), which can be paid with a federally guaranteed loan at the one year U.S. Treasury bond interest rate with no payments due until death, secured by a junior mortgage on the patient's personal residence, if any, if the patient is unable to pay.

Labor Laws

* Increase the federal minimum wage to $16 per hour ($32,000 per year for a full-time employee which is roughly the federal poverty line outside Alaska and Hawaii), index it to the consumer price index, and extend it to independent contractors who are providing personal services.

* The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth, the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement,  to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition (a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job), any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” or twenty-six work weeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the service member’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave). Extend FMLA coverage to include being seven months pregnant or more. Expend the duration to up to eight months in a two year period. Create a federal grant equivalent to full-time minimum wage to anyone taking time off under the FMLA.

* Mandate a prorated 80 hours per year of paid time off for employees working 2,000 hours per year (i.e. 1 hour per 25 hours worked).

Controlled Substances

* End the status of marijuana as a federally controlled substance.

Reproductive Rights

* Statutorily clarify that states may not prohibit someone from prescribing and mailing abortion or contraception drugs across state lines or from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion drug or contraception drug obtained from out of state.

* Clarify that federal government health care facilities (e.g. prison medical centers, military hospitals, historically veteran's hospitals) can provide abortions and other reproductive health care notwithstanding state or local law.

* Clarify that the Emergency Medical Treatment Act requires states to allow abortions as part of a medical emergency, pre-empting state law. 

The State Of The Union

The State of the Union is bad and the union is weak.

Another day has passed and the tyrants are still in power.

Trump is still issuing unconstitutional and illegal executive orders, which is absolutely infuriating. 

RFK, Jr. is busy trying to make sure that more Americans die by ending medical research and promoting dangerous junk science about vaccines and more. 

Texas is trying to cheat by redistricting for the 2026 election. 

The courts have slowed it down a little, but only so much. The 10th Circuit let Oklahoma ban medical care for transgender children. The Republican packed U.S. Supreme Court in encouraging Trump's illegal conduct. 

Congress has smoothed the edges mildly, but the razor thin and factious Republican majority is full of cowards who aren't brave enough to look out for our country even when they know that what they are voting for is wrong.

The U.S. was a global leader in science, medical research, and higher education. Trump 2.0 is doing it's best to kill that. He's also radically defunding K-12 education and undermining academic freedom and a commitment to truth at all levels.

Biden left Trump a U.S. economy that was in great shape. Trump has ravaged that in less than seven months with tariffs, with a resort to illegal immigration enforcement actions, with tax cuts that hurt the economy, and with a budget so fiscally irresponsible that the credit rating of the U.S. has suffered. His attacks on the independence of the Fed, and the integrity of economic statistics also undermine the U.S. economy.

Trump's budget deprives more than ten million people of access to health care, makes health care more expensive (especially for the working class and for self-employed people) and less available for almost everyone (especially in rural areas), deprives millions of food aid, and will kill tens of millions with cuts in foreign aid.

Wars are won by the side with the most and strongest allies, and Trump has alienated almost all of them. Previously allied countries are cancelling F-35 orders or like Spain, deciding not to make them, because of his actions.

So much harm has been done so fast. No one in all of history has ever done more damage to the United States than Donald Trump.

Is There Hope?

While all of this is grim, and irreparable damage has already been done, the cause is not hopeless. 

The U.S. economy, even for the Trump base, is nowhere near the tatters that Weimar Germany was, which suggests that far right radicalism will have less steam.

The U.S. is a federal system and blue states are actively resisting.

Trump and the GOP did not win a decisive victory in 2024. They secured the thinnest of majorities in the House, thin majorities in some key swing states in the Presidential election, and a thin majority in the Senate with several (but not enough) moderates parting ways with him on key votes in the Senate. A few percentage point shift in public opinion from their November 2024 high water mark could dramatically swing control to the Democrats. In Texas, only 53% of voters backed Republicans for Congress, although gerrymandering provided them a far larger share of the seats, and the proposed Texas gerrymander to remove five Democrats seats could backfire by making many of the Republican seats in the new map much more vulnerable.

Trump's approval rating is at record lows, even compared to his previous term. The Epstein scandal continues to eat away at Trump and is undermining support for him even in his base. His budget is wildly unpopular on a bipartisan basis.

SCOTUS has never had a lower approval rating, is at record or near record lows of support from Democrats and unaffiliated voters, and is more divisive on partisan lines than ever before (as is Congress), and this may mobilize action to pack it or reform it. SCOTUS may not be formally beholden to politics, but it isn't indifferent to its waning legitimacy either.

The markets have responded poorly to Trump's idiotic on again, off again tariff policies and his threats to Fed independence.

Trump has made enemies of the entire medical establishment, almost all of higher education, school teachers everywhere, and the Catholic Church. His open racism and xenophobia may cost Republicans some of the black and Hispanic support that Trump secured in 2024. And, even a fair number of Republican politicians and former members of his administration, when they are retiring or otherwise less vulnerable, have shown little loyalty to him. Trump rules by fear and transactional deals alone.

Swing states like Nevada are suffering badly as a result of his policies. Farmers are suffering. Small business people are getting hurt. Manufacturing is in bad shape despite the fact that boosting this industry was one of his main goals. Inflation, especially for groceries, is surging. The haughty indifference of his cabinet members cost many people their lives in the central Texas floods. Trump's refusal to provide disaster relief has mostly hurt his own voters. His budget did much more harm to red states than the blue states. The more Trump's policies are implemented, the more skeptical conservatives are being forced to admit that they are worse off because of them.

Democrats are decisively over-performing in almost every vacancy election, and elections around the world are swinging decisively to the left in reaction to Trump. If the 2026 midterm elections proceed without too much GOP mischief, they could be a Republican bloodbath with even many lean GOP seats falling to Democratic challengers.

People are in the streets countering ICE abuses and protesting Trump's many abuses.

Trump has somehow finally discovered that Putin is the bad guy in the Ukraine War and is supporting Ukraine again after seriously wavering. European support is also keeping Ukraine in the fight in an ongoing war of attrition where it is holding its own, despite casualties and slight continued losses of its territory. Putin is increasingly worried about Russia breaking apart, and Russia's economy is struggling. Russia's military, especially its ground forces, have seen immense losses with more than a million casualties, a very large share of all of its army's tanks and armored vehicles and artillery forces destroyed, and its navy and air forces bruised (although not absolutely ruined like the army). In another year, it will be worse. Ukrainian attacks deep in Russia are damaging its oil and gas infrastructure, its transportation infrastructure, and its military resources and has forced Russia to worry about attacks far from the front line. Many of Russia's best and brightest young men have emigrated. North Korea is strengthening its military ties with Russia, but its "elite soldiers" are at least as mediocre as the ill-trained Russian conscripts that they are fighting alongside, and the quality of the military supplies that they are providing is, on average, inferior.

Trump is 79 years old and is not in good health, mentally or physically, and he's only getting worse in the face of the stress of actually governing and his advancing age. There is a very real possibility that he could die of natural causes while in office. 

The list of folks who would like him dead is a geopolitical version of Murder on the Orient Express, and the list will only keep growing. He's made enemies of Canada, Denmark, Western Europe, Panama, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, India, China, and islands inhabited only by penguins. For immigrants, small business owners who are ruined by his attempts at mass deportations without due process, people denied disaster relief, people who will lose their hospitals, federal workers and grant recipients who have lost their jobs, transgender soldiers discharged without pensions despite doing nothing wrong, soldiers who have had spouses deported, people and law firms he has targeted for revenge, and women who have had their reproductive health compromised because of his court appointments and policies, it is personal and dire. 

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and Trump's hatchet man early in his current term, is seeing his companies from Tesla to SpaceX to his AI venture crumble, even though the stock markets haven't fully caught up to how bad the situation is for his businesses, not just now, but in their future prospects in which he is baggage that is dragging them down. Musk has no realistic chance of reversing the drag he is on his businesses, even though he beat back a host of federal government attacks on them in the short run by cozying up to Trump. But, Musk's threat to start a new political party, which would take voter support almost entirely from Republicans, could be devastating for the GOP in 2026 if implemented.

And, one shouldn't forget that the inevitable force of demographic change is against them. New younger voters who first vote in a federal election in 2026 are very decisively left leaning, much less Christian, and much less white. Elderly voters who are the most conservative and the most prone to be white Evangelical Christians will die before then. Two years doesn't make for that much of a difference, but it is one more little weight on the scale against the GOP.

Republicans have made a huge bet on a stupid, vengeful, psychopathic mad man, and if their bet doesn't pay off, they face an existential crisis. They could go the way of the Whigs. Their collapse could be worse than it was in the wake of Herbert Hoover and could last as long.

Bivens Narrowed Again

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority isn't troubled at all by denying remedies to violations of the U.S. Constitution.

Bivens is a U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed suits for money damages against federal officials who violated selected constitutional rights, something Congress has failed to do by statute.

The order list [from today] include a unanimous per curiam opinion in Goldey v. Fields, No. 24–809 (S. Ct. June 30, 2024) (also available here), which involves an effort by a federal prisoner to sue federal prison officials for an Eighth Amendment violation alleging use of excessive force. The Court rules a Bivens suit is not available in a three-page opinion that concludes this way:

This case arises in a new context, and “special factors” counsel against recognizing an implied Bivens cause of action for Eighth Amendment excessive-force violations. To begin with, Congress has actively legislated in the area of prisoner litigation but has not enacted a statutory cause of action for money damages. See Ziglar, 582 U. S., at 148– 149. In addition, extending Bivens to allow an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials and the “inordinately difficult undertaking” of running a prison. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84–85 (1987). Moreover, “an alternative remedial structure” already exists for aggrieved federal prisoners. Ziglar, 582 U.S., at 137; see Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 74 (2001). The existence of such alternative remedial procedures counsels against allowing Bivens suits even if such “procedures are ‘not as effective as an individual damages remedy.’” Egbert, 596 U.S., at 498.

For the past 45 years, this Court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts. See Egbert, 596 U.S., at 490–491. We do the same here.

Congress should extend 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide the same relief to violations of rights under the U.S. Constitution or federal law to violations committed under color of federal law. 

The claim that this would make it inordinately difficult to run federal prisons is at odds with the fact that an identical legal rule applies to all state and local prisons and jails, which house the lion's share of federal inmates (and a much larger share of violent criminals).

The Morality Of Legality

Resistance from civil servants has been less effective at mitigating illegal conduct from Trump than one might hope, because the U.S. Supreme Court is enamored of a novel "unitary executive theory" with no historical basis, and because Trump has used his illegal attempts to fire independent agency leaders, to fire civil servants without a legal basis, to interfere with federal government unions, and to appoint incompetent people chosen for loyalty, in order to undermine this form of resistance to his illegal acts.

The Morality of Legality holds that it is a moral wrong, and essentially taboo, for those who work in the executive branch to act unlawfully, even if high-level officials much want to act unlawfully, even if circumstances clearly call for the action in question, and even if there is a strong public demand for the unlawful action. The Morality of Legality is less innocuous and more directive than it might seem. It is a red light; it is a conversation-stopper; it empowers law and lawyers. Those who are committed to it will not engage in unlawful action even if no court will be available to strike the action down, and even if there would be significant gains, including political gains, from undertaking the action. 

The Morality of Legality distinguishes nonauthoritarian from authoritarian systems, and it is a fundamental (and puzzlingly unrecognized) feature of the rule of law. In U.S. constitutional law, it can be taken to be codified in the Take Care Clause. Those who are committed to the Morality of Legality are willing to face "litigation risk" and to seek changes in existing law, even if those efforts are more likely than not to fail. The Morality of Legality is often felt as a matter of duty, rather than a product of some consequentialist calculation; but it is probably best justified on rule consequentialist grounds. 

By itself, the Morality of Legality is (mostly) agnostic on the allocation of interpretive authority as between the executive branch and the judiciary. Under emergency circumstances, very narrowly defined, the Morality of Legality might have to yield. The Morality of Legality might also be followed in other places, including of course legislatures and courts, and also private institutions.

Cass R. Sunstein, The Morality of Legality, SSRN (2025).

Sanctioning And Preventing Federal Government Corruption

Emoluments And Other Standing Problems

The law is very clear. And, it is the highest possible law - a part of the United States Constitution. But, enforcing it, particularly in the case of a President who violates it, by any means short of an impeachment, which can be circumvented by 34 Senators of the President's political party, is another thing.

The U.S. Supreme Court's rules on standing to sue takes the position that you can't have standing to sue as a taxpayer, as a U.S. citizen, or as a voter, on a wrong that affects everyone in the same way.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the President is immune from criminal liability for his official acts, no matter how egregious (in a stark deviation from the widespread understanding at the time it ruled this way), in addition to being immune from lawsuits seeking money damages for his official acts.

Justice Department policy, and the structure of the Executive Branch also prevent federal prosecutors from prosecuting a sitting President, and the President's authority over the Justice Department, together with his pardon power, allows the President to shield anyone he favors from federal criminal prosecutions.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't directly ruled on the issue, but at least one lower court (in the criminal case against Trump involving his refusal to turn over documents with government nuclear secrets which he kept in his residence after he left office and refused to return upon demand) has held that special prosecutor statutes are unconstitutional, in an extension of the (until recently fringe) "unitary executive theory."

The same problem does not arise to nearly the same extent in state government. Almost every U.S. state has an independently elected state attorney general who can prosecute misconduct in other parts of the state government, and the federal government can also step in to prosecute state and local government corruption and violations of civil rights as a federal offense. The subject-matter jurisdiction of state courts is also not subject to the same level of strict limitations as the federal courts are by Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

This problem isn't unique to the Emoluments clause either. It comes up frequently in Establishment clause violations of the First Amendment. It can come up when one part of the federal government illegally shares confidential information with another part of the federal government. It comes up when the executive branch spends federal government money without a Congressional appropriation to support it. It comes up when a President orders a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and then pardons anyone who was involved in it. And, there are many other contexts where serious violations of the law within the executive branch have no viable remedy.

In some cases, an entire house of Congress can, by majority vote, authorize a lawsuit against the Executive Branch in federal court, but this is cumbersome and rendered frequently ineffectual by partisan politics. In some cases, a federal government chartered corporation, like the Public Broadcasting Corporation, can have independent standing to sue and by sued under a statutory grant of federal authority.

But, there is no systemic solution to this problem in existing federal law. Mostly, we just have to trust the President to do the right thing, but not all Presidents have earned this trust, and certainly, our current President has not. This is a glaring flaw in American Public Law.

Solutions

There are plausible solutions which could be imagined that would set aside the usual rules of standing on the grounds of necessity. We could grant the federal courts the authority to deputize a special prosecutor to pursue these issues. We could grant standing to pursue these issues to state attorneys-general. We could allow Congress to create an independent agency (perhaps one located in the judicial or the legislative branch with no Presidentially appointed directors or board members from an organizational chart and constitutional perspective) to pursue these claims. We could vest this authority in former U.S. Presidents who are still living, or the candidate that was the runner up in the last Presidential election.

Possible Constitutional Amendments

Perhaps we need an "anti-corruption" constitutional amendment, although conceptually, maybe this could be broken into several components. Consider this package to six constitutional amendments (and to be clear, some of those could also be accomplished without constitutional amendments):

Anti-Corruption And Standing Amendment

* Create an agency that has standing to take criminal, and civil legal action with national effect), to enforce federal law, to render advisory ethics opinions, and to protect the rule of law within the federal government (perhaps with a director appointed by a governing board made up of federal judges chosen at random),

* Prohibit federal elected officials from having a role in, or knowledge of, the management of private businesses or investments while in office,

* Prohibit self-dealing and conflicts of interest by federal officials including the President,

* Prohibit felons from serving as President unless that disability is removed by the same means as an insurrection disability is removed,

* Prohibit members of Congress from serving while serving a sentence for a felony,

* Authorize removal of members of Congress without being formally expelled from office by the House where someone is a member by the courts for various grounds established by law constituting good cause,

* Expressly authorize the appointment of special prosecutors by a three U.S. District Court judge panel, where the Justice Department is conflicted, or where the federal government fails to prosecute a crime when a preponderance of evidence, beyond mere probable cause, shows that it was committed by the proposed defendant,

* Authorize facial challenges to the constitutionality of legislation and regulations by the anti-corruption agency and by state attorneys-general, even in the absence of a case or controversy or other proof of standing,

* Create standing to enforce the establishment clause by any person who resides in, or is detained by, the territory of a government that is alleged to have violated it,

* Expand the scope of grounds for impeachment to include a willful and persistent failure to faithfully execute the laws in violation of one's oath of office, or a willful defiance of a court order.

* Try impeachments before a panel of judges rather than by the U.S. Senate,

* Prohibit judges appointed by a President from serving as a judge in any court proceeding in which the appointing President is a party in a non-official capacity (including any criminal prosecution),

* Mandate that Congress pass appropriate legislation to thwart judge shopping,

* Create binding ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts that can be enforced without utilizing the impeachment power by state attorneys-general, but some minority percentage of Senators, or by an anti-corruption agency, and

* Provide additional remedies for courts when federal government officials disobey court orders (including the permanent removal of an official from office, and the appointment of a special master to carry out the duties of the defiant official).

Immunity Amendment

* Overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Presidential immunity ruling creating blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for a President's official acts,

* Forfeit immunity from civil lawsuits for money damages for acts that an official has been legally adjudicated to have committed in a criminal case or civil proceeding,

* Allow immunity from civil or criminal liability for federal government officials exclusively when Congress authorizes it by law, including, but not limited to Presidential immunity and qualified immunity for law enforcement,

* Prohibit stripping all courts of the authority to consider any matter,

* Narrow the political questions doctrine, and

* Make clear that there is no immunity from contempt of court liability.

Anti-Tyranny Amendment

* Impose limitations on the prosecution of state and local government officials by federal officials while they are performing their official duties (perhaps limiting such prosecutions to the anti-corruption agency),

* Make the Posse Comitatus Act a matter of self-executing constitutional law and to allow its enforcement in civil actions as well as by criminal prosecutions,

* Provide a self-executing, federal, private cause of action for compensatory, economic and non-economic damages including litigation costs and attorneys fees and/or injunctive relief, for any deprivation of federal rights constitutional or statutory, under color of state or federal law, against the government under whose authority or actions or inactions the deprivation was made, on a strict liability basis without regard to the intent of the government or governmental agents or employees doing so, and with no form of immunity (in a matter akin to the takings clause),

* Provide an absolute right to have criminal convictions vacated upon a showing of actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence,

* Create a right to counsel in deportation actions and to bring habeas corpus petitions,

* Remove the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (which applies only to a handful of children of diplomats anyway) and "Indians not taxed" provision (which was legislatively mooted in 1924) from the grant of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment,

* Prohibit criminal defamation laws,

* Prohibit laws barring travel from one state to another in order for the person doing so to avail themselves of another state's law,

* Prohibit laws barring interstate communications about a matter that is legal to communicate about in either state,

* Prohibit revocation of immigration status based upon speech which would be protected by the First Amendment for a U.S. citizen,

* Prohibit involuntary denaturalization under any circumstances (even in the naturalization was secured by fraud which could be prosecuted but could not result in loss of U.S. citizenship), and

* Expressly include the limitation on the suspension of habeas corpus to places where the federal courts are not open established by Ex Parte Milligan and to clarify that the writ of habeas corpus is available to person detained outside the territory of the United States by the federal government or its agents or contractors.

Election Law Amendment

* Make Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (the insurrection clause) self-executing in any local, state, or federal tribunal with jurisdiction over qualifications to hold public offices or elections for those offices,

* Create eligible voter standing to enforce election laws including campaign finance laws, and constitutional provisions related to elections in jurisdictions where the voter has a right to vote,

* Remove the authority of Congress to resolve disputes over the election or qualifications of their members or the validity of duly certified state elections for federal offices, vesting that authority, instead, in the courts,

* Invalidate all statutory confidentiality rights other than attorney-client privilege and religious confession privilege for anyone running for, or holding, a federal elective office,

* Remove the authority of state legislatures to appoint electors for the President by any means other than a vote of the people,

* Require federal elections be administered at the state and local level by officials who are not partisan elected officials or appointees of partisan elected officials,

* Authorize non-criminal remedies for false statements of presently existing facts, or false statements related to voting, made with actual malice, in connection with political speech, and

* Constitutionally overrule Citizens United which constitutionally prohibits any rigorous campaign finance regulation.

Pardon Power Amendment

* Expressly prohibit the President from pardoning himself, or members of his family, or a President who appointed the current President to the office that put him in the line of succession to be President,

* Prohibit pardons from contempt of court sanctions whether civil or criminal, 

* Invalidate pardons for criminal conduct taken in reliance on a promise from the President that it would be pardoned, or issued in exchange for any consideration,

* Require notice of all pardons and commutation (other than a stay of execution) to be transmitted to Congress to be effective, and to subject them to a legislative veto in the same way as a veto override that must be acted upon with a certain period of time (perhaps 35 days) after it is transmitted to Congress.

Congressional Supremacy Amendment

* Clarify that Congress has plenary authority over the operations and organization of the Executive branch, and over how the President exercises his discretion in any matter whatsoever of which the constitution or statutes grants him authority, which the President has no authority to contradict,

* Require all Executive Orders purporting to impact anyone outside of the Executive branch of the federal government to be transmitted to Congress and paused until ratified by both houses of Congress, or until three weeks have elapsed, before taking effect, and to allow either house of Congress alone, by majority vote, to repeal any Executive Order,

* Legalize legislative veto legislation (retroactively),

* Confirm the authority of Congress to pass anti-impoundment legislation,

* Confirm the validity of civil service protections for public servants,

* Confirm the validity of government contracting rules established by Congress,

* Constitutionally disavow the "unitary executive" theory by expressly allowing Congress to create independent agencies whose directors, boards, and staff cannot be dismissed or directed by the President,

* Validate the constitutionality of laws such as the Administrative Procedures Act which governs how executive branch discretion may be exercised,

* Provide that Congress has the authority to waive any claim of executive privilege made by the President, and

* Constitutionally ratify the authority of Congress to pass legislation like the War Powers Act.