Remarks
Elections are a fragile means for assuring the wellbeing of the republic.
There is a story about a man who decides to join a monastery and become a monk. The monastery he joins is a Trappist monastery, and according to the strict rule of silence of this particular monastery each monk is allowed to say one thing once a year. After twelve months go by, the new monk goes to the abbot to say his one thing. He says, “The food here is awful.” The abbot nods and that is that. A year goes by and the man has his next meeting with the abbot. He says, “The food here is terrible.” The abbot nods and that is that. Another year goes by and the man has his next meeting with the abbot. He says, “I quit; the food here is still awful.” Abbot responds, “It is just as well that you leave; all you do is complain.”
We may pity the monk, but in a way our situation as citizens is worse. As US citizens we get to say one word (Yes or No) and not once a year, but once every other year to our congressman, every fourth year to our President, and every sixth year to our Senator. It is no wonder that our politicians have become so wayward.
The election process is a hopelessly feeble means by which to ensure that the intent of the US Constitution is honored and followed by politicians who have on their minds other conflicting and compromising matters of far greater concern to them. This fact alone has a great deal to do with the need for a Constitutional Council to do their best to ensure that elections are fair and fraud-free, and also to keep our elected officials and their appointees constantly mindful that they serve We the People, and not the other way around.
By the way, there is a subconscious myth lodged deeply in the minds of many that the interests of the Republic are being safeguarded by the press. That may have been at least somewhat true a few generations ago; but it is certainly not the case now. The media as a whole has become collectively a public relations syndicate that promotes for the Democrat Party and its liberal agenda. They might say that their agenda is tantamount to protecting the interests of the Republic, but that notion is belied by all sorts of things that the media deliberately declines to give attention to. For example, the media ignored examining and refuting the Obama Administration’s transparent lie, less than 2 months before his presumed re-election, that the 9/11/2012 attack in Benghazi and the murder of our Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other men were an infelicitous result of a protest inflamed by an obviously ridiculous, and ridiculously obscure, video made by a complete nobody. Our legacy media turned a blind eye to the Obama Administration’s incompetence in preventing this outrage, its incompetence in dealing with it when it occurred, and its incompetence and fecklessness in reacting to its consequence in any way because, if the media had given this shocking development the attention it deserved, it would have not only embarrassed Obama, but might have also imperiled his re-election, both of which are contrary to the legacy media’s Liberal agenda. Slightly more recently CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson severed her 20-year relationship with CBS essentially because Ms. Attkisson insisted on investigating the Obama Administration’s scandals and abuses of power, all of which was too much for CBS’s pro-Obama’s predisposition. Again, even more recently the legacy media worked over time to put it about that that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer was merely Russian dis-information. The New York Times eventually admitted that it lied, but only when the exposure of the lie was many months after it could have impacted the 2020 election. (Studies indicate that 10% to 15% of the electorate would have changed their vote if they had known the truth about Hunter Biden's laptop computer; this most certainly would have changed the outcome of the election.) By the way, this is the same corporate media that for years bullied and badgered everyone who had serious doubts about the honesty and fairness of the 2020 election as "[despicable] election deniers". There are perhaps thousands of other examples where information important to the public went unreported because it undermined the legacy’s agenda and narrative. So much for the legacy media’s concern for the interests of the Republic.
Protecting and ensuring the integrity of elections
Article I Section 4 of the Constitution states:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a politician goes to Congress in search of power. And it is also true that a politician, motivated by power and especially accumulating power, is at least tempted to use, if he can, some of his power to protect, safeguard, and even augment the power that the politician has sought and already obtained. And what better way to do so than to use power to tinker with the election process in such a way as to favor his re-election, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, sometimes secretly, and sometimes illegally. Accordingly:
The Constitutional Council is empowered, by at least a three forth (¾) vote, to establish the basic guidelines for federal elections. This is the only area where the Constitutional Council may enact laws. And such laws enacted by the Constitutional Council can be countermanded or altered only by the Constitutional Council.
Remarks
This does not alter the Constitution as it was originally written; however, it does allow the Constitutional Council to remedy issues with the election process where the Council overwhelmingly determines that significant problems persist, as will be discussed. Elections are the principal and proper mechanism, feeble as it is, by which We the People regulate and guide the government We chartered via the US Constitution. It is only proper that the management and integrity of our elections be in the care of the Constitutional Council which is designed to serve as the People’s guardian of the Constitution, as opposed to being managed by the very individuals, i.e. elected officials, who are most likely to benefit by making adjustments in how elections are managed or by being overly careless in the way some aspects of how elections are managed (e.g. allowing felons, aliens, dead people, people plagued with insanity or advanced dementia, or pets to vote, or allowing people to vote multiple times).
The strength of this argument is redoubled when added to it is the fact that Councilors are selected in an unusual way that is intended to emphasize impartiality, and to isolate them from the partiality and partisanship associated with elections. That makes Councilors particularly suited for establishing the fair rules for fair and proper elections. They are separated from the elective process as much as practical, in that they cannot be re-elected and have avoided partisan campaigning in the past. In other words, Councilors are better suited to establish equitable election laws consistent with the Constitution than conflicted elected officials who participate in partisan campaigning and who stand to gain if election laws are adjusted in some way in their favor.
