Donations so far:  $1,850

There are many forces today both domestic and foreign that are Challenging the Constitutional Rights of the United States of America. These forces can result in bringing about a 2nd American Revolution if not checked. This revolution can be accomplished through peaceful actions if done within a window of time that still allows for constitutional changes to be made by legislation. If not this revolution may in time only be accomplished by means of armed resistance. It is my hope that the former is the case. Below I am presenting 12 measures that I believe can be implemented to assure a peaceful yet meaningful revolution within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States of America. Robert Ishoy 

Disclosure: The articles on this page are the writings, opinions and concepts of Robert Ishoy and are not associated directly to the Society for Historical Exploration (SHE) or any other members of SHE. Posting of these articles by Robert Ishoy are posted on this site for the study and consideration by the readers only and do not constitute the opinions of the Society for Historical Exploration or its members.  

1. Universal Representation in Public Industries. 
2. Separation of Political Power from Industrial Wealth.
3. Exclusion of Anti-Constitutional Entities.
4. Restriction of Taxation, Unlawful Use of Tax for Foreign Expenditures.
5. Private and Governmental Options for all forms of Insurance.
6. Elimination of Legislative Riders.
7. Balanced Budget Initiative.
8. State Control of Cycle of Life Legislation and Initiatives. 
9. Comprehensive Judicial Reform.
10. Eliminate Military Operations without a Declaration of War by Congress.
11. Make Economic Treason Illegal.
12. Maintain a Free but unbiased Media.


Universal Representation in Public Industries

Background: This addresses public corporations for profit only. Private corporations and nonprofit corporations are exempt. The current arrangement for public corporations is that a board of directors is selected by and who in turn represent the stock holders. The board of directors then hires the CEO.   

Deprivation: The CEO of a public corporation for profit reports to and is only accountable to the board of directors. Most often it is a small number of major stock holders who determine who sits on the board of directors. These major stockholders usually have purchased the stock without contributing any real value to the company and usually are only interest in a short term gain in the stock value. This arrangement does not often equate in decisions by the CEO for the long term health of the company and its’ contributions to the public at large to include the employees of that company.

Solution: Pass a resolution that requires that the members of the board of directors of any public corporation for profit be divided evenly between three entities; one third selected by the stockholders, one third elected by the employees of the company and one third who are persons unrelated to the company either by employment or by financial interest to act has representative of the public at large who are jointly selected and agreed on by the first two thirds.   

Results: This arrangement will result in the hiring of the CEO who then reports to and is accountable to a board of directors that represents the stockholders, the employees and the public at large. Under this arrangement the CEO is more likely to make decisions that will result in the long term health of the company and the company’s positive contributions to the public at large. 


Separation of Political Power from Industrial Wealth

Background: We currently have elected officials who through their political actions can obtain wealth indirectly from various entities. And many industries and organizations hire professional lobbyist to use offers of wealth and/or support either directly or indirectly to persuade politicians on submitting and passing favorable legislation for their respective industries.   

Deprivation: Too often elected officials are creating and passing legislation that benefits selected entities but is detrimental to the public at large. The potential wealth that can be obtained by elected officials through this process can cause a serious conflict of interest, lead to false arguments and a lack of good judgment.  

Solution: Make it illegal for any elected official or candidate for an elected office or their spouse to receive any direct or indirect new offers of employment, investments or other financial arrangements from any public or private corporations, individuals, partnerships or organizations for the period of their campaign while officially running for an elected office, while serving as an elected official and for a period of 2 years after leaving public office.  An elected official or candidate for an elected office or their spouse may retain any employment offers, investments or financial arrangements made prior to their candidacy for office.   

Results: This will result in our elected officials to rely solely on the salaries that are authorized for them to receive while serving in office and avoid the potential of financial gain from other sources that may influence their legislative decisions. 


Exclusion of Anti-Constitutional Entities

Background: The 1st Amendment states that Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And Article 6 of the Constitution states that This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Deprivation: There is an inherited dilemma in our Constitution regarding our rights versus the preservation of the Constitution. Basically what do you do when a particular political party, a religious group or other body of citizens have proclaimed that it is their aim, their objective to destroy the Constitution of the United States either in part or in its entirety. Yet the Constitution protects free speech, the right to assemble and the freedom of religion.  

Solution: In Article 6 it clearly states that all senators, representatives, executive and judicial officers of both the federal government and of the states must be bound by Oath to support the Constitution. So it is lawful to exclude any person from holding office if they have demonstrated that their intent is to destroy or to deny any of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. Persons who hold membership in, support or adhere to any group or organization that clearly has proclaimed that it is their aim to destroy or deny the provision of the Constitution should be barred from any elected office.  

Results: This will still preserve each individual’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly and religion even if they speak out to destroy the Constitution. They just won’t be qualified to hold an elected office in government. 


Restriction of Taxation, Unlawful Use of Tax for Foreign Expenditures

Background: This country was started on the premises of no taxation without representation. Originally the constitution outline that the states would be charge:  “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union” and that it must be equally divided: “but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” By allowing each state to determine how taxes are to be levied and then each state paying the Federal Government assured that the citizens of each state had more power and “representation” in determining taxation. The Constitution clearly states what taxation should be used for: “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”.

Deprivation: Direct taxation on individual citizens by the Federal Government goes against the basic principles that our Founding Fathers established of having the Federal Government receiving funds from the states rather than the other way around thus maintaining a federal system of States’ Rights. The practice of the Federal Government using any funds collected through taxation to contribute to, give, fund or loan to foreign entities goes against their constitutional authority. 

Solution: Return to the rule of law that each state will conduct direct taxation of its own citizens and then allow the Federal Government to levy taxes to each state uniformly based of the states respective populations. Pass a clear amendment stating that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government and each state in the Union to use any funds received from taxation to contributed to, give, fund or loan to any foreign entity.

Results: These measures will give each individual citizen more direct representation at the state level regarding taxation, and empower the states more self-determination. They will also assure that all taxation of the people of the United States will be used for only the purposes outlined by the Constitution of the United States.


Private and Governmental Options for All Forms of Insurance Required By law

Background: The concept of all forms of insurance was originally designed as a communal agreement to provide a mitigation against unforeseen hardships. This concept was never intended to be a for profit enterprise. Nor was it ever to be a financial burden on the individual participants. Yet at the same time the basic freedoms guaranteed in our constitution does allow for free enterprise.

Deprivation: Much of the private for profit insurance industries are supported and required through legislation forcing individuals to purchase policies that they do not want or need. By any government dictating the purchase of a particular product results in unfair and unfavorable terms for the buyers which in regards to insurance has resulted in causing most citizens to become insurance poor.   

Solution: Continue to allow private for profit companies to offer their own options of insurances but for any form of insurance that is required by law the government that requires that insurance must offer a government sponsored not for profit option. All laws requiring any type of insurance should be determined at the most local levels of government possible.

Results: By requiring cities, counties and state governments to offer insurance options for all forms of insurance required by law individual citizens of those respective cities, counties and states will have the right to either choose between the government sponsored insurance or a private for profit insurance offer thus creating fair and balanced competition in the insurance industries.   


Elimination of Legislative Riders

Background: Currently in our legislative process for passing legislation so called riders are permitted. These riders often are totally unrelated to the original legislative proposal.      

Deprivation: The practice of allowing riders in legislation often results in legislative proposals being excessively long and inclusive with hidden legislation and hard to understand. This allows individuals or small groups of the legislative body to pass particular items of legislation that might otherwise not be passable by a regular vote of the legislative body.     

Solution: Eliminate under law the practice of legislative riders by all legislative bodies.

Results: Legislative proposals will be written in a clearer, more understandable and shorter form giving individual legislators the ability to determine a more correct opinion regarding their vote. It will also provide individual citizens a more clear and understandable determination of their respective representatives record of legislative actions.    


Balanced Budget Initiative

Background: Currently the Federal Government and many state governments do not require a balanced budget.

Deprivation: This has allowed governments to spend much more than then receive. This can only be done by either borrowing funds to cover the excessive spending or by in the case of the Federal Government printing more money. Borrowing funds results in large interest payments paid by a government to the lenders which can spiral out of control. Printing of additional money can cause inflation. 

Solution: Require by law that all levels of government must pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year.

Results: Governments will be forced to reduce spending or raise taxes. Either way governments will no longer be allowed to accrue debt resulting in large interest payments to lenders.



State Control of Cycle of Life Legislation and Initiatives

Background: The spirit of the Constitution if not stated by the letter of the law under the Constitution is that legal issues relating to individual citizens daily lives, commonly known today as the cycle of life issues, be administered by the states rather than by the authority of the Federal Government.   

Deprivation: The Federal Government is too distant with too great of a compass to determine the individual needs, rights and desires of the general body of citizens of each state. The powers of the separate states are often eliminated through federal legislation. The Federal Government is often influenced by powerful lobbyist representing specific industries or other national entities who gain too much influence over national policy makers. An example of this is the power of the Pharmaceutical industry over the Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding mandatory vaccines.  

Solution: Return to the principle of states’ rights in regards to legislation related to laws and administrative actions affecting citizens’ cycle of life issues as stated in Article 10 of the Bill of Rights “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.” These issues include but are not limited to personnel health, education, marriage, family law, employment law and retirement.

Results: Under state administration, the basic needs, rights and desires of the citizens of the respective states will be more closely determined by those citizens. Differences between the states regarding cycle of life issues will provide more freedom of choice by individuals and create competition between the states for the general welfare of their citizens.   


Comprehensive Judicial Reform

Part One

Background: The Constitution of the United States clearly states that citizens have a right to a jury trial for “All” criminal charges and even most civil cases by an “impartial” jury. The right to a jury trial is stated in Section 2 of Article III and then further explained in three of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The writers of the Constitution obviously recognized the vital importance of this right to assure a fair and just judicial system.

Deprivation: Today less than 5 percent of all cases are judged by a jury trial. Many cases are resolved through plea bargains, bench trials or through arbitration. Plea bargains are commonly used to intimidate or threaten individuals to give up their constitutional right to a jury trial.  Arbitration agreements are often placed discreetly in long forms signed by individuals giving up their right to a jury trial. Individuals are often convinced by authorities that their case will be best resolved by a bench trial due to the lesser nature of the offense and that they must forfeit their right to a jury. All of these practices are unconstitutional. When jury trials are used, attorneys are allowed to use the selection process of voir dire and peremptory challenges to “stack” the jury in their favor.

Solution: Pass legislation making it illegal for any party to use any method of denying a person to their constitutional right to a jury trial. All verdicts of guilt for all cases must come only from a trial by jury. The practice of voir dire by attorneys must be eliminated. It is the responsibility of the judge or magistrate to assure that the jury is impartial. Empower juries to try each case based on the merits and circumstances of that case to not only determine guilt or innocence but also the severity and justification of each case and the resulting penalties.   

Results: By demanding that all cases be tried in a court of law by a jury trial according to the Constitution of the United States all citizens will be judged more fairly under the law according to their peers rather than by a single representative of the court. Persons in positions of government authority are less likely to charge individuals for minor statutory offenses knowing that the charges will need to be brought before a jury. Jurys have the power to not only determine guilt or innocence but they also have the power to interpret the just and constitutional bases of any charges brought against an individual thus allowing for a judgment of our peers based on the merits of each case rather than having a judge or magistrate determine each case based on a set of predetermined judgments and penalties.  

Part Two

Background: The concept of prison as a form of punishment is relatively new in world history. In the past prisons or jails were commonly used to hold charged individuals until they were brought to trial. Punishments usually were in the form of fines, humiliation, corporal punishments or death. The constitution of the United States only states, regarding penalties, that there is to be no “excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. Our society has determined that humiliation and corporal punishments are considered cruel and unusual. And a percentage of the population disagree with the death penalty. This has led to the incarceration of individuals becoming the standard form of punishment for many crimes. Today some prisons are managed by private for profit companies. Crimes are generally broken down into three major categories; crimes against persons, crimes against property and statutory crimes.     

Deprivation: The practice of long term imprisonment as a form of punishment has resulted in a large penal system which cost the taxpayers a significate amount to care for persons found guilty of a crime. Studies show that the correctional system does little to rehabilitate individuals for reentering society. Many consider the practice of long term imprisonment especially under the conditions of solitary confinement as cruel and unusual punishment which results in the further Deprivation of persons incarcerated.  Long term imprisonment is commonly used for all three categories of crimes.

Solution: Require fines as the primary penalty for statutory crimes. Base the fines on a person’s wealth rather than a fixed amount. If a person fails to pay the require fine then place them into a voluntary work detail until the fine is paid. If they fail to complete the voluntary work detail then place them into a forced work detail.  Replace prisons with work details for crimes against property. Allow a person to continue working at their employment if they are gainfully employed and then require that they spend additional time working for the state to pay restitution for the damage or theft of property. Make the amount of restitution equal to 10x the amount of damaged or stolen property. If a person fails to complete the required voluntary work detail then incarcerate them into a forced work detail system. Increase the death penalty for more serious violent crimes against a person. For lesser violent crimes against a person place them into a forced work detail that will result in payment of restitution to the victim or victims of their crime. The restitution amount determine in a court of law by a trial by jury. In addition the court can impose on a guilty person professional rehabilitation services at their own expense.  

Results: These measures will eliminate the need of prisons which cost the taxpayers and only result in guilty parties becoming a burden to the state. Persons found guilty of a statutory crime will be allowed to continue their normal contribution to society as long as they fulfill their obligation as determined in a court of law. Restitution for crimes against property and for lesser crimes against a person or persons will allow an individual to redeem themselves and more likely to become rehabilitated. For serious crimes against persons in which an individual is deemed a permanent threat to society and/or cannot be rehabilitated  into society then the death penalty is actually more human that life in prison and relieves society of the burden of caring for such a criminal.

(Authors note) It is my recommendation that the death penalty be for the following serious crimes against a person or persons; Intentional murder, violent rape, sexual crimes by an adult against a minor of less than 10 years of age, assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to comment murder, intentional false accusations of a serious crime against another person that would result in the death penalty of the accused.

Part Three

Background: Some laws have been passed in which the wording is unclear and/or undefined well enough to be properly interpreted for the true intent of the law.

Deprivation: The result of poorly written laws can end with the same penalties for completely different offenses. For example the laws regarding statutory rape often result in the same penalty for an adult who sexually abuses a young child as compared to a 19 year old who has consenting sexual relations with a 17 year old. In such cases the law should be rewritten properly. This is an obvious solution however it is often not the case. The fault is clearly due to the lack of legislators doing so.

Solution: When deficiencies are clearly identified in a particular law require legislators to review and rewrite the law accordingly.  Allow for a jury who during a particular case determines that a law is unclear and/or poorly defined, demand that the law be reviewed by the responsible legislative body within a specified time frame.

Results: This will force legislative bodies to perform their duties in a timely manner.


Eliminate Military Operations without a Declaration of War or Consent by Congress

Part One

Background: The following are listed under the Constitution of the United States as powers only given to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government under Article 1 Section 8; “10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Likewise the only authority given to the Executive branch is “be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Deprivation: Throughout our nation’s history the Executive Branch has increasingly with time conducted military operations without the approval of the Legislative Branch in violation of the Constitution resulting in our military acting as a foreign police force and/or involved in reconstruction efforts of foreign nations without an act of war.

Solution: End all permanent bases in and deployments of US forces to foreign nations. US Forces can only be deployed to a foreign nation on the approval of Congress and then the deployment must be for an approved operation by the Legislative Branch for a limited time according to the powers given them by the Constitution.

Results: This will end unauthorized military operations worldwide by US Forces directed solely by the Executive Branch or by the military itself. This will end the US military acting as a police force and/or as a reconstructive entity to foreign nations reducing hostilities to our military and our nation in times when no declaration of war has been declared.

Part Two

Background: In today’s world there are many threats against the United States other than Foreign Nation States. These include Terrorist organizations, International Crime Organizations and other International and Domestic Political/Economic Organizations that work against the Constitution of the United States.

Deprivation: It has become the practice for the President of the United States as Commander in Chief to authorize military actions both overt and covert against selected threats against the United States. Yet other threats of these types continue to operate almost with impunity.

Solution: Empower Congress to also make declarations of war against international organizations that pose a threat to the United States. Empower the President of the United States to use military operations to combat these threats only after an official declaration of war by Congress. These measures are not applicable to domestic organizations which must still be investigated and prosecuted according to domestic law and while maintaining their Constitutional rights. Once an official declaration of war has been declared by Congress against an international organization. The President of the United States will be authorized to conduct any traditional military operations to eliminate that threat to include military operations in foreign states where the international organizations reside. The President must attempt to gain the cooperation of foreign states involved however if the said foreign states remains uncooperative the President will be authorized to take military actions in these said states without their consent.

Results: These measures will first assure that military actions are only taken against international organizations deemed a threat to the United States by Congress. Once a declaration of war has been made against an international organization the President of the United States will have the authority to eliminate the threat by any military actions deemed necessary. This would allow the United States government to aggressively eliminate international organizations involved in terrorism, illegal drug trades, human trafficking, illegal poaching of animals and other such threats to the wellbeing of the United States and to the international community.    


Make Economic Treason Illegal

Background: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” What is the meaning of the term “general Welfare”? The Tariff Act of 1789, passed by Congress and signed by President Washington, was argued to be necessary to protect domestic industries due to foreign nations providing government subsidies to private businesses which allow for these businesses to ‘dump’ foreign goods onto the United States.

Deprivation: In regards to this issue times have not changed much. There are still many foreign governments that are still practicing this measure to give their own industries an unfair advantage over US companies. In addition foreign governments today also find ways of influencing US policy makers to benefit their respective nations and host business. When a United States Citizen receives personal compensation from a foreign entity which in return benefits that foreign entity at the cost of the “general Welfare” of the United States or the Citizens of the United States that is “Economic Treason”. Much of this has been done under the guise that “International Free Trade” supports a free market society.

Solution: Impose appropriate tariffs on foreign goods based on several factors to include: 1. Does the foreign government subsidize this industry? 2. Can this product be produced in the United States? 3. Is the domestic production of this product crucial to the common defense and general welfare of the United States? Pass legislation making it illegal for any US citizen to profit personal gain from a foreign entity that will result from a violation of Section 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution and/or in violation of the imposed tariffs on the United States.

Results: These measures will provide for the Constitutional protection of US business against foreign entities that practice unfair international trade practices that can harm the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


Maintain a Free but Unbiased Media.

Background: The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This protection is critical to a free society however when the media is controlled by an oligarchy with their own agenda then the media becomes a tool of propaganda rather than informative news and investigative research. This concern is not new. During the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries Yellow Journalism was a serious issue.  

Deprivation: “In 1984, fifty independent media companies owned the majority of media interests within the United States. As of 2020, 90% of the United States's media is controlled by four media conglomerates: Comcast (via NBCUniversal), Disney, ViacomCBS (controlled by National Amusements), and AT&T (via WarnerMedia).” Wikipedia. To add to this there are a number of foreign influences on the media in the United States as well, either through investments or by means of collaboration. The term “Fake News” has become a reality in everyday life and the media now controls the minds of the general population. Thomas Jefferson wrote ““I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” This form of tyranny is the most threatening and the most lasting.

Solution: In order to preserve a free press, one that conducts legitimate investigative research and presents the news with the utmost objectiveness possible there must be a high competitiveness to do so and a body of professionals who oversee the general standards of the profession. This body must not be controlled by the government or by corporations. This requires the establishment of a Journalist Association much like the American Bar Association for lawyers. This association must be independent from all governments and any corporations and must have the power to take disciplinary action against its members. Congress however needs to pass antitrust legislation specific to the media. This antitrust measure must require that a company can only own a single media outlet. And pass legislation requiring that practicing journalists must be members of the independent National Journalist Association.

Result: The antitrust legislation would result in each media outlet; be it a newspaper, TV station, radio station, magazine or internet site being owned by a company with no other interest in any other media businesses. You would still have national media outlets but there would also be hundreds of other media companies. All of these companies would have to hire journalists who are members of the National Journalist Association. Companies that own any media outlet would be forbidden by law to contribute funds by any means to this association preventing companies from influencing or controlling the association’s policies, procedures or actions.