♠Constructive Content of The Powers Reform♠

©®

FARE COURT

FARE COURT POWER POINTS

Foundational Freedoms

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATES INITIATIVE

    The Foundation of Economic Freedom is Knowing the Answers!

Therefore,

The Method is the Message!

The Federalist Paper, Number 22, concludes with this truism about the underlying strength of America:

“The fabric of the American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of  the Consent of the People.

The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”  

It must be if We are to be Free!

Ultimate authority is simply the Consent of the Governed!

 

 

Fare Court or Public Forum Debate Reform Initiative Sectional Provisions

 

 

Binding Procedures for Electoral  and Elected Authority:

 

Section 1

 

    1.  The Electorate, for purposes of Socio/Economic Freedom or any legal reason, shall retain and have full authority to demand or propose administrative action, policy or legislative laws by the initiative and/or referendum process.  

      2.  After verification of petition signatures established by existing law and stated herein — and related to the governing levels involved within California — what will become permanently known as Fare Court, aka Public Forum, Debates:

equivalent to a legal hearing, shall be held at least 45 days, but no more the 60 days, prior to election day.  

 

     3.  Majority vote of 50% plus one will prevail; a super majority vote shall be 66% and cannot be rejected by legislative challenge or veto and can only be revised by Electoral Authority at the next election, or be compelled by an appropriate court of law to be revisited at the next election — legal challenges will of course remain in place all the way to the US Supreme Court if taken to that point.

 

      4. If less than a super majority vote, it may be delayed by a court of law through decree, stay or verdict based upon current law; however, such decisions shall only postpone for ninety days beyond the date at the beginning of the initial sixty days stated directly above. 

Said decisions shall only have power to first refer the matter back to the legislature for super majority vote solutions, or be reformed by elective initiative law by simple majority or greater vote.   

Any judicial decision shall be a guide only for any stated resolution methods herein.  

If the electoral or legislative follow up method results in a super majority vote, then the initiative or legislative demand must take place and remain in force until revisited through elective initiative or a super majority vote of the legislature.

    5.  Veto of a simple majority by either the governor or both houses of the legislature  shall be in place for any type of socio/economic law enacted through the initiative process.   

Elected representatives are just that; it is their responsibility to help govern and therefore to serve — that “leadership” ability must be maintained as the Power of the People has finally expanded to its rightful place as the final arbiter of our freedoms.   

But in the event of such a veto by the governor, the matter shall be referred back to the Electorate after first giving the opportunity to the legislature to resolve a given issue within sixty days.  

Current law  regarding other types of legislation which may be vetoed shall remain in place.

 

    6.  Within this just stated prescribed time, enacted initiatives shall be subjected to existing law only as stated herein.  

In the event any initiative law is changed by the methods also stated herein or negated by those same methods, this initiative reform shall not be altered by any such affirmation or negation of a given initiative law, legislative demand or referendum, therefore all provisions of this PDI process shall be kept in place. 

 

    7.  No part of this Reform Initiative shall be altered, modified, over ruled or vetoed by any court, governing body, elected or non-elected official — it can only be changed by the Electoral Conscience via election majorities through either initiative or legislative demand. 

State judicial bodies may not change or reject a passed proposal except to clarify through established law and return it to the subject authority for a conclusive vote after consideration of raised legal questions; a call for a special election may also take place for new issues or to revisit further issues raised by such questions; a special election may be called by a court of law, the governor, a majority vote by the legislature and by the initiative process.

 

    8.  Barring national or public security concerns by the appropriate authorities; and if needed,  a court at the appropriate level: city, county or state may issue a subpoena or subpoenas for court records, legal evidence or any public information confirmed by established standards as acceptable legal evidence under oath.

Section 2, Proclamation

    1.  Fare Court, aka, Public Forum Debates proclaim the multifaceted, multilevel civil value of legally compelled, intellectually reliable information which is the hallmark standard of true reform.  

Presented through this Forum of  pro  or con evidence  in consideration of any socio/economic issue, it  shall be required in all candidate, initiative matters and legislative demands brought before the Electorate at any governing level within California.

 

The following regulations and/or rules shall apply by force of state law, as stated in this Initiative, in regard to the mandatory completion of Fare Court/Public Forum Debates:

 

 

Section 3, Distribution

 

    1.  Since Fare Court is the keystone within The Powers Reform,  all debates shall be recorded for transmission via statewide or local level TV channels and Internet site or sites; audio for Internet and radio transmission shall also be made available along with transcripts for publication in print media and online reading.

    

    2.  All transmitted forms of Fare Court/Public Forum Debates shall be placed and repeated weekly beginning immediately after a concluded debate; and, must be done no later than 30 days prior to Election Day.

    3.  Interested private parties may also disseminate pro or con media with donations or at their own expense prior or during the pre-debate period if they so choose, as well as during the post-debate, pre-election thirty day period before the actual Election Day — but, during these pre or post-debate periods, all pro or con media shall not be subject to the Fare Court/Public Forum Debate evidence or law and these interest parties will obviously retain their First Amendment Rights. 

This is essential to inform voters in other ways.

Section 4, Conduct

    1.  During recording, debate participants shall conduct themselves in an orderly manner and they shall be sworn in as in any judicial hearing under the same legally binding oath under penalty of perjury. 

It is proclaimed within this Provision that willful disruption shall be potentially prosecuted as a Contempt of Court case and provable Perjury shall be prosecuted under any and all applicable statues and those stated herein.

 

    2.  There must be an impartial moderator to swear in participants and to keep order. The moderator shall be a retired or sitting judge, and shall be subject to the same laws regarding judicial conduct, with particular focus upon legally supportable evidence without bias or rancor — if provable in a court of law, they shall be removed as a moderator permanently.

 

 

    3.  Since all Fare Court/Public Forum Debates will be recorded through audio/visual media for distribution, time limits shall be strictly enforced: there shall be 6, 3 minute debate turns per each side, pro or con, followed by two alternating 2 minute pro or con closing statements; starting turn and closing shall be determined by an off air coin toss: pro shall be heads, con shall be tails.

 

  

 

 

      4.  The moderator will issue a neutral opening statement concerning the debate topic or topics germane to the subject or subjects at issue; the moderator shall also be prepared with sufficient foreknowledge of debate subject(s) prior to the actual debate.  

Each side will have maximum of time as declared in sub-section 3 directly above.

 

    5.  Candidate Forum Debates — which apply only to federal in-state, local and state elections  — shall be conducted with the authority and rules in the same manner as stated above.  

Whether there are only two candidates involved or whether there are more than two, the moderator shall divide time allotments accordingly in such an event.

 

 

 

    6.  This provision shall in no way interfere with candidate promotion outside of Candidate Forum Debates or with any non-Fare Court conforming debate outside the scope of this Initiative.   

Existing local and state law shall continue to apply regarding candidates running for office unless those laws conflict with this PDI, in which case this Initiative shall supersede such laws.

Section 5, Funding

     1.  Funding for production needs to provide for Fare Court/Public Forum Debates shall be paid by fees equal to one third of any and all political contributions, cash or gifts — from any source or type whatsoever, including lobbyist gifts or gratuities to any public servant — and be held by the  state treasurer for that purpose alone in a separate account of their own design.   

Funds may also be donated voluntarily to said account by for-profit or non-profit operations for which they shall receive a full tax credit; and, they will also be given acknowledgment at the beginning and the end of a given debate.  

Any excess funds shall be held for the purpose of funding debates alone at some future date as well.  

This funding phase shall begin upon enactment of this Initiative Reform, and will be enforced by the California State Franchise Tax Board.  

Also, as is currently allowed by California Tax Law, individual tax payers may still designate the “$1.00” amount without affect to their tax obligation; but, after enactment, tax forms shall be modified to add Fare Court donations to tax form(s) through an alteration or editing plan of the State Franchise Tax Board’s own design — donation amount shall not be limited.

 

    2.  Payment of designated funds for any kind of salary or stipend shall not be allowed for any candidate or pro or con promoter present or nor any Fare Court/Public Forum Debate participant.  

Expenses for moderators, security, technical, utilities and other costs deemed as absolutely necessary shall be administered on the authority of a city clerk, county assessor or state treasurer depending on the governing level affected and administered  by transparent methods of their own design.  

Current laws regarding fraud shall still apply.

 

    3.  Again, only the moderator, a two or more member security staff and a minimum of three media technicians to record the Fare Court/Public Forum Debate for transmission shall be paid.  

A minimum of four hours pay for their professional services, in line with their current pay scale, shall be paid in regard to the actual one hour debate — additional professional expenses shall also be reimbursed, but only as determined by the appropriate funding authority  — as soon as possible.  

Those taking part in the debate as either candidates or pro or con proponents, shall not be paid expenses or salary in any form or way.

 

   4.  Advertising by private and/or public sponsors for a debate itself shall also be allowed and is even encouraged herein; but since there will be no commercial breaks during the actual debate, such ads — no longer than 15 seconds — can only be at the beginning and/or end of a given debate.  

Such private and/or public sponsors may advocate pro or con positions if they so choose in any media after or before a debate or debates, but only during, the opening or closing of the actual debate itself.  

In addition to the mandatory funding requirements stated above in sub-section 1, additional charitable contributions of air time, money and print space will be allowed and may be encouraged by the moderators at their discretion in their closing statements or through a 15 second ad.

 

    5.  Because of the over riding importance of Fare Court/Public Forum Debates to an electorate — and as a last resort only — any short fall of funding shall be made up for by local or state funds and will be repaid from future moneys placed in any Fare Court Fund at any level of governance within California; donations to the appropriate governing level department will also be allowed.  

In any event, strict accounting of all funds will be mandated and such records made available to any interested party; such accounting procedures shall be subject to laws regarding fraud and the penalties thereof.

Section 6, Administrative Authority 

    1.  A simple majority is herein defined as 50% plus one vote; a super majority is herein defined as 66% or more vote.   In regard to an election result after a Fare Court/Public Forum Debate, a state legislature — only if first vetoed by the governor — may over rule a local or state wide initiative simple majority if they so choose through normal legislative protocol.   

But, they can only do so by means of a super majority of both Houses; if so, they must offer an alternative law along the same lines.

 

 

 

    2.  The governor, a mayor or their equivalent and a legislative body, shall have authority to order a proposal be studied by a specific authority, or their delegated agents, then  by the electoral process of Fare Court/Public Forum Debate finally be decided  by an election on a date certain for any level of governance.  

All of said actions may be done without petition by elected bodies and the leaders identified herein and legislative authority via majority vote.

 

    3.  Cities, counties and/or legally designated governing districts within California shall only have authority to order a proposal within their legally binding and stated areas of  purview.  

To reinforce that which has been stated herein: private and public groups may promote proposals to be studied and acted upon through petition, meaning: Fare Court/Public Forum Debates resulting in elections for  applicable legislative demand(s) and/or voter initiative proposition(s) at the state or local level.

 

    4.  By simple majority, the state legislature, county or local bodies proportionate to the level concerned – as well as non-elected peer or public groups – may compel a Fare Court/Public Forum Debate to offer  plebiscites on voter opinions on any judicial ruling or law, and may be done quarterly if privately funded or can continue according to initiative law as stated herein.   

Since such actions are of public opinion only and are not legally binding, regular laws regarding petition rules stated herein shall not apply, but the same rule of law regarding legal evidence and perjury, and, the conduct of the Fare Court/ Public Forum Debates themselves shall still apply.