World News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/a-proposed-us-constitutional-amendment  

https://theduran.com/a-proposed-u-s-constitutional-amendment/  

A Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment

24 September 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

A common tactic whereby billionaires’ agents, including House and Senate members and lobbyists, cripple passage of any progressive bill into law, is to combine two bills into one that will prevent either bill from becoming supported by enough legislators of both Parties to become passed into law; consequently both bills become defeated even if both bills are popular with the public. The legislators thus work for their mega-donors against the public. That result is regressive not progressive, even though both Parties call themselves democratic instead of aristocratic (what both actually are — the dollars rule America, the public don’t).

A good example is that in the present Congress, a bill, the Democrats’ “Stop Insider Trading Act”, banning members from holding corporate stocks (which tempt legislators to vote for their corporations against the public), which is H.R. 7008 in the House and S. 4134 in the Senate, was paired with the Republicans’ “SAVE America Act”, requiring a photo-ID proof-of-citizenship in order to vote, which is H.R. 7296 in the House and S. 3752 in the Senate. Each of these popular bills thus became, of course, the poison-pill for the other, so that, when the combined  “Stop Insider Trading Act” came up for a vote twice on July 22nd, both Parties killed it. (Whereas Republican billionaires especially didn’t want to reduce their ability to corrupt their legislators, Democratic billionaires especially wanted maximum immigration from poor countries so as to keep down the U.S. wages they pay.)

This is normal in ‘democracies’.

So, I asked ChatGPT “Why isn't it illegal to combine two bills?” It said “Because the U.S. Constitution contains no federal “single-topic rule.” Congress therefore generally may put several unrelated legislative topics into a single bill.” (plus lots of unnecessary details), and so I asked it “Can a bill be presented in congress to make such combinations illegal?” and it replied (plus lots that was unnecessary): 

Suppose Congress enacted a statute saying “Congress may never combine unrelated subjects in one bill.” A later Congress might attempt to pass an A+B bill anyway. Whether a previous Congress can bind a later Congress's legislative procedure in this manner — and especially whether a federal court could invalidate the resulting statute — is much more legally problematic than a constitutional prohibition would be.

A constitutional amendment would eliminate that problem. Congress itself would then be subordinate to the rule.

For example, an amendment could provide essentially:

No bill, joint resolution, or other measure having the force of law shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject shall be clearly expressed in its title. No provision not germane to that subject shall have the force of law.

I asked “How would the Amendment read?” and it gave me a six-section proposed Amendment, whose first was “Section 1. Each bill or joint resolution having the force of law shall embrace only one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” I told it, “Simplify it to simply Section 1.” It gave me “Each bill or joint resolution having the force of law shall embrace only one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” I then asked it “Wouldn’t that do the job?” Without using the word “Yes” it said yes. But I still wanted it improved; I said “My purpose is to put into ANY COMBINATION bill into a defensive position, and to strengthen legislators who oppose ANY combination bill.” It agreed that further simplification would be an improvement, and gave me: “Each bill or joint resolution shall embrace only one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” It noted that this very short Amendment “creates a constitutional presumption: one bill = one subject. Once that is in the Constitution, anyone proposing to combine provisions bears the burden of explaining why they really constitute a single subject. A legislator opposing the combination can make the straightforward objection: ‘These are two subjects; the Constitution requires separate bills.’” I agreed: that sentence should be the proposed Amendment.

Please ask your Representative and Senators to sponsor it. You may show the URL for, and-or link to, the present article, as describing the reason why it’s necessary.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.