B.1. Periodic Review
Beginning in 2040, and every twenty years afterwards, a national referendum must be held. Its purpose is to determine whether the People reaffirm the delegation of their Sovereign Power to the government under this Charter. The referendum shall occur during the regularly scheduled federal election of that year.
The ballot shall present the following question:
“Do you wish to continue delegating your Sovereign Power to the government as outlined in the National Charter?”
Voters shall respond either “Yes” or “No.” If “No” receives three-fifths or more of the votes cast, Consent shall be deemed In Question.
This represents a fundamental question that every generation should have to address. “Do we, as a people, still consent to this government?” It is a deep and heavy question.
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t present at the Philadelphia Convention, nor during the ratification fight. He did, though, write a lot of letters to give input. He believed a generation lasted 19 years. He also believed, “the earth belongs always to the living generation.”[1] His idea was a full constitutional convention every generation. That’s an idea that was rightly never adopted. It seems generous in principle and morally sound, right? Especially for a nation founded on the Lockean ideal of consent of the governed? But that much automatic change has always seemed to disruptive. After all, think of the core resistance the debate on this very Charter faces – that replacing the Constitution of 1789 wholesale would generate too much potential for instability. We, as a people, don’t have an appetite for wholly transforming our government. It’s scary.
But the bigger idea is still simmering on the stove – if replacing the Constitution of 1789, or any governing document, based on an artificial timetable is untenable, how do we create an escape valve for the pressures of popular dissatisfaction short of armed rebellion. After all, surely that’s even worse, right?
What if we take something like Jefferson’s idea, but not a full convention? What if we have a referendum every twenty years (because 19 years is a weird number for us to wrap our brains around), where the citizens can express their continued consent or raise a question about it? That’s what this language does. It doesn’t mandate any changes at all. It simply makes a positive statement that, every twenty years, the citizens get to say whether they are willing to continue their consent. And if sixty percent of them say no? The government isn't overthrown; it is considered "in question." Notice, the language doesn’t say it is illegitimate. It says it is in question.
And that’s not just the whim of a bare majority. It is sixty percent of the votes. That’s a solid supermajority. It is also the same threshold required to ratify the Charter in the first place.
[1] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Sept. 6, 1789.
Last updated
Was this helpful?