Embark on a journey with Jack Decker, the fierce champion for state autonomy and a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, as he lays out his ambitious blueprint to recalibrate the balance of power in the United States. Jack, a military veteran turned libertarian firebrand, takes us on a deep exploration through his political metamorphosis—carefully weaving tales of his service days to his active engagement in the political arena. As he dissects the original intent behind the U.S. Constitution's landmark clauses, we get an intimate look at the making of a modern-day states' rights advocate.
Our conversation with Jack doesn't shy away from the provocative, as he proposes bold amendments that would reshape Congress and shift the roles within—imagine state governors stepping into federal shoes, redefining how laws are crafted. This isn't just about going back to the roots; it's about marrying the founders' vision with 21st-century innovation. From the pivotal roles of senators and representatives to the strategic selection of vice presidents, we dissect the political machine to uncover new possibilities for efficiency and representation.
We wrap up the episode by considering the broader implications of Jack's ideas, from the potential expansion of the U.S. through the inclusion of new states to the chess game of third-party politics. Jack's proposals challenge the status quo, provoke new thoughts about governance, and prompt us to consider the future landscape of American politics. Whether you're a seasoned politico or a curious onlooker in the world of civics, this episode promises a compelling narrative filled with insights on power dynamics, the allure of political office, and the evolving ideologies that shape our nation.
Embark on a journey with Jack Decker, the fierce champion for state autonomy and a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, as he lays out his ambitious blueprint to recalibrate the balance of power in the United States. Jack, a military veteran turned libertarian firebrand, takes us on a deep exploration through his political metamorphosis—carefully weaving tales of his service days to his active engagement in the political arena. As he dissects the original intent behind the U.S. Constitution's landmark clauses, we get an intimate look at the making of a modern-day states' rights advocate.
Our conversation with Jack doesn't shy away from the provocative, as he proposes bold amendments that would reshape Congress and shift the roles within—imagine state governors stepping into federal shoes, redefining how laws are crafted. This isn't just about going back to the roots; it's about marrying the founders' vision with 21st-century innovation. From the pivotal roles of senators and representatives to the strategic selection of vice presidents, we dissect the political machine to uncover new possibilities for efficiency and representation.
We wrap up the episode by considering the broader implications of Jack's ideas, from the potential expansion of the U.S. through the inclusion of new states to the chess game of third-party politics. Jack's proposals challenge the status quo, provoke new thoughts about governance, and prompt us to consider the future landscape of American politics. Whether you're a seasoned politico or a curious onlooker in the world of civics, this episode promises a compelling narrative filled with insights on power dynamics, the allure of political office, and the evolving ideologies that shape our nation.
Welcome to the D'Roll McClean show. I'm your host, d'roll McClean. Today we actually have the pleasure of interviewing a guest by the name of Jack Decker. Now Jack has come up with this thing called the States First Amendment. We decided he would be a good guest for the show. He's an author and an advocate for this States First Amendment, which he says will return the US Constitution closer to what the founding fathers wanted 100 years ago. So after the founding of the nation, pro-centralized power advocates, he says, finally got a pro-centralized power US Supreme Court to agree with their. What he says, the warped reading of the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause, which unleashed a federal government into an all-powerful current self that we have. And he wants to return most of that power back to the states. So we're going to be discussing the Constitution he came up with called the States First Amendment. Welcome to the show, mr Jack Decker. I'm happy that I have you on. So when you came up with the States First Amendment, let's first establish why you thought this was an important thing to do.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm a libertarian. In general terms, that means I am fiscally respectful, socially tolerant. I want to have maximum freedom, minimum government. I believe that taxation is a form of extortion. If any of your viewers don't think that is the case, I dare to them not to pay their income tax and see what happens, as well as their property tax if they'd like to lose their house.
Speaker 2:When I was I am a veteran when I was in the military, I experienced a tolerant society. The military has to be that to function. Soldiers are not under the uniform. Soldiers are not under the rule of rights. They're under the uniform code of military justice. They don't have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion the religion is a privilege and other freedoms that you don't even think about, like being able to choose your job. When you join military, you're given an aptitude test and based on that aptitude test, they will offer certain jobs to you. If you have high aptitudes, your job pool is large. If you have very little, your job pool is one in that security.
Speaker 2:After I left the military, I was only in there for one stint I just started researching tolerant societies. Tolerant society just means total, total society. We have them several in our own country. In addition to the military we have prisons, tolerant societies, boarding schools or tolerant societies Kind of like thinking of self-enclosed self they can exist by themselves in a way, and eventually that led me to discover libertarianism.
Speaker 2:And that was a long journey. The last straw was Last two straws. One was accidental. I was at a book store looking for something to read and a book clerk there said hey, do you like Frank Lloyd Wright the architect? And I said yeah, sure I like that, I'm from Wisconsin. Frank Lloyd Wright is a famous architect from Wisconsin and he said oh, here's a book that is a fictionalized version of his life. And so I read that book, totally engulfed by it. I read from cover to cover Huge book One without sleep, got some sleep, went back to and talked to Sam Booklark and I said oh, that's fantastic book. He's like oh, I feel like this one, here's another one is called Atlas Shrugged by Anne Rand, by a same author, and the introduction to that book and basically says that this book, atlas Shrugged, is to answer the questions raised by her first book, autant Head. And it was kind of like saw the books going back at that time we didn't know what libertarian. I didn't know there was a label for what that count was and eventually I found that out. Read books by like Harry Brown etc.
Speaker 2:And over the years I've been involved in libertarian party. I was the director of public relations and advertising for a libertarian party of Dane County, wisconsin. I ran for the 76th State Assembly District on a libertarian party ticket. I've done numerous debates. I talked to countless high school classes and college classes about what libertarian is usually debating the professor who's usually especially when it's a philosophy class the professors usually are commonists. And just over the years I've been developing and I looked at our country and I looked at a red history of our country and what it was like at the beginning and what it is now. And then there was just a. It was kind of odd. It was very well.
Speaker 2:Our first constitution was not the US Constitution, it was the Arigous Confederation. It had flaws. It was what our revolution was run under. The American Revolution was run using the Arigous Confederation. It was a very weak federal government. All the states were independent. Each state had one vote. There was only one body, an electricity body. To change the Arigous Confederation required a unanimous vote. All 13 colonies had to vote for it. That eventually became states and there was a rebellion called the Shaw Rebellion, s-h-a-y, and it showed more flaws of the Arigous Confederation. So they met again. The founding fathers were all still around and this was really new to our country. It was really new and they came up with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights followed that, but with the Constitution was signed in with the understanding that there would be another convention and that's where they deal with the Bill of Rights and that's where our Bill of Rights came from.
Speaker 2:A lot of this is you can read about the founding of the country. There's several documents. One of them is called the Federal Papers. There's correspondence between many of the founding fathers. It's very interesting. I found it very interesting.
Speaker 2:But then I looked at well, after the Constitution was created, we had a limited, very limited federal government and then I looked at where we have now. I said, wow, how did we get here? How did we get from that to this? And so, being a history. Then I came across the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause and how pro-centralized powers advocates finally got a Supreme Court. That was also pro-centralized power and the Welfare Clause has in its clause, in other words, called the General Welfare Clause, is the states coming to the General Welfare of the other states? Well, at the time of the founding fathers that meant that that was a phrase that used to mean come to the defense of other states. So if the United Kingdom were to attack Virginia, all the rest of the states would come to the General Welfare, come to the General Defense of Virginia, and it would just be on their own. But we have a, just like the word set in the English language. If you look at how many definitions there are for the word set, you can create a maze. It's one of the massive amount of different meanings. For a set Welfare has another meaning and the pro-revolutionary, the pro-centralized powers were able to their war mean was well, that was well for all of the individual, and so that's where they were able to crack, put a crack in that dam.
Speaker 2:And, for example, like Social Security, social Security was originally only meant for Whittles over the age of 65, 65 in Odeb and orphans. A few of you know that this actually was meant for Whittles and orphans. Orphans, I think, are held in a bunch of agencies now, but anyways, and it was a very you know how can you be against Whittles and orphans. You know how. You know it's a tactic Today we have, you know, for the children. We need to do this for the children. That's the same tactic they use for Whittles and orphans.
Speaker 2:So, security Bar the Congress clause was meant to when, under the arms of the Confederation, we were basically 13 separate nations and loosely held together. The United States Constitution. The Congress clause essentially eliminated tariffs and trade barriers between the states, like we have now today. Whereas you don't have to give visa travel to any of the states, we have free movement, such as, as well as Congress, you don't pay a tariff to sell your product from Illinois to Virginia. So, but then we had this brand new technology, this unbelievably fast technology that, honestly, was putting people's lives at risk, and it was called the railroad. There are people at the time that felt that man should not go faster than 35 miles per hour, and, in fact, there were many people saying that pregnant women shouldn't ride the railroad because it could kill the unborn child. Anyways, here's this mad machine that we had, a superhero that was faster than a speed train, that could travel through several states in one day. And that's where the pro-centralized power advocates said, hey, we need to regulate this because of this speed. And that happened in 1888. I believe 1887 is when they were put the crack in that dam. And since and once that crack is in there, then it's just easy to open that crack and actually both dams fell and this is where we have now.
Speaker 2:My amendment does not directly to you with the general for clause or the commerce clause. It doesn't try to strengthen their, the wording of them or change the wording of them, because then you're playing a game of whack-a-mole with the pro-essentialized power advocates. Then they just have to find, you know, another, they just have to come up their own or reading of that new wording and we're back to where you know square one again. So what I do is instead I create a new politician. In our country is a politician spoke of a federal politician and a state politician and if you want me to argue, that's in section one or two where that's created. Would you like me to read those sections?
Speaker 1:oh, yeah, yeah, and I would. If you didn't mind, I was gonna just go through each of the.
Speaker 2:If you would, I'll just answer any questions, then you have yeah.
Speaker 1:So yeah, you can go ahead and explain what what you mean by a new thing, and I think it'd be helpful also to go through the state's first amendment and explain your reasoning for each one as well.
Speaker 2:Okay. Section one is each state gets one vote in the US Senate. That vote goes to the state's current governor. A current state governor can be served as the US vice president, and governors cannot be compensated anyway or formed for the service to the US Senate or the office of the vice president. I might as well read the second amendment, because it's basically the House version of it. The second second section, section two, is each state's vote in the US House representatives is equally divided amongst all the states current state assembly members. Each current state assembly member is a full member of the US House representative. None of them can be compensated in a way or formed for their service to the US House representatives. What these two sections do is it brings Congress into the 21st century.
Speaker 2:During when the Constitution was created, the fast-formal of travel was horse or ship and letters could take weeks, if not months, to get to their intended destination. There's no way you can run a government by that method, so that's why we had everyone come to Washington DC. Originally it was Philadelphia that was. Our first capital was Philadelphia, but then George Washington surveyed an area in Virginia and Maryland and that became Washington DC. I don't think he was actually want to be it be called that. But they wanted to call it because he was George Washington. And so what happened is that at that time our country was, like the rest of the world, was agricultural. Almost everyone I think was 98% of the population was involved in farming. Today is almost exact opposite. I think only 3% to 6% of our population is involved in agriculture. By that time, that was the the biggest employer. That's how you made your money by and large, and so the vast majority of the Congress were farmers. And so what they would they? They had to pay their bills. They had to be home, they had to oversee their farms. Some were single plot farmers, but, you know, even if they had the South Slaves or workers in the north, they still had to be there to oversee them. So what happened was that these house or presenters and centers would be home. They plant their crops in the spring, tend them over the summer, harvest them in the fall, after the harvest is over. Then they would make their way to Washington DC before the rose became too muddy or froze over.
Speaker 2:At that time there were no paved roads. There were not even gravel roads. The only roads that were quenco paved were paved with bricks, and those were in the city, and so did I get stuck in the mud or worse conditions. They would come in and they would winter. There's no phrase. They were wintered in Washington DC. Congress would winter there, and that's when Congress would then be in session and they take care of everything they can take care of until spring came about and the rose thawed, and then the rose dried out and then Congress, the session of Congress, that's ended because all the conquestsmen had to go back to tend their farms, and that's how our government ran. But now what we're doing right now? We're having telephone conversation, instantaneous. Where are you located?
Speaker 1:I'm in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Speaker 2:I'm in Iowa, so what? We're having this conversation. We could have a video conference where I could actually see you. We could have a document, like the document I have in front of me for the State Rights Amendment, and we could change it in real time. That if I made a change, you would see the change as I would be making it. In fact, you could have several people and each one having their own separate colors and time stamps, etc. The host would then whether the host accepts, would then become black, you know. But you know my color can be red if I'm, the host usually is red, and then it goes to all of your different colors blue, green, etc, etc. That's what we can do now.
Speaker 2:There's not a reason technologically. There's no reason, no technological limitation as they had during the colonial times, to have Congress be in Washington DC. They can tell you tons and tons of people tell commute every day. Now COVID accelerated that process, but it was already going out well before then, back when I was in college in the 90s. I roll out to the editor that advocate, but Congress should tell commute, come on, join. You know, get with the 21st century. So if the congressman don't have to be in Washington DC. They can be home, whether a consenter or the US House representative, it would be political suicide. They then say, like a US center says oh, I'd rather be in Washington DC than live in my state. You've just committed political suicide. Expect a recall vote. If they can, you be kicked out.
Speaker 2:I was, I live for, I think, 16 years in Mass in Wisconsin and we had a US House representative who was so arrogant I forget what his name was but he didn't come back in campaign. He was one and he was a chairman of, I think like the Ways and Means Committee. He had all this power, washington DC, and he just took it that the people just should accept it, that you know, I'm here, you know, and. But he didn't come back. He didn't come back to campaign, he stayed in Washington DC. Local radio talk show host kicked him out of office, just the people were totally upset. So that's the reality.
Speaker 2:You can't. If you can stay at home, you should be at home, but there are things that prevent them from doing it. We in my state, wisconsin, there was a senator who, when he initially ran for office, he must have read my letter to the editor, because it was a complete ripping off my idea, but that's fine, I didn't. I want to be on the idea to be implemented, but part of his campaign platform, which he, which he literally painted on his the garage door of his house, so you can try by his house and read his campaign platform. One of them was is that I will tell him to work out, stay here. Well, congress just basically say, oh yeah, sure, you can do that, but you can't propose bills and you can't vote on bills because of the parliamentary rules of Congress and that's sort of my.
Speaker 2:The section 3 deals with that. I might as well read that now. Section 3 is all US senators can propose and vote on legislative bills from their states. All US House of Representatives can propose and vote on legislative bills from their districts and their state capitals. All congressional committee and subcommittee means must be conducted by way of video conferencing. This is sections 3 is the parliamentary rules. But like I gave you with the example of the senator, of senator that wanted to tell him to go home, they purposely have to come in. There are famous cases, famous histories of your senators on their deathbeds being wielded to the Senate to vote on a bill Recently of Dianne Feinstein.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's the most recent one that came into my head, dianne Feinstein, and I think they used to wield in strong thermin as well.
Speaker 2:Yes, yes, and there's many instances of this and people definitely sick I mean not other, not old like those two, but just really really sick. I think there's one I don't know what the senator's name is, I think he came in, vomited on the floor. He was so sick, vomited on the floor, voted, vomited again and then he rushed back to the hospital. This is, you know, the parliamentary rules. This here, a break set, enables them to tell me this is so that those that try to use those parliamentary rules of force the congressman to come back to it. Now, as far as these things go, we've all. We now have all this congressman back home. Well then, the question is what? What are they going to do there? Okay, we are two years house, two years centers, every state has two years centers, and what are they going to do back home? They're gonna sit there, and but what are they gonna do?
Speaker 2:My position is that those senators are literally meant to be representing their state. That's the whole point. They're to represent their entire state, not a district. They're not representing a population, they're representing their state. And if you don't understand, there's a few that want to have, like, a direct election of the president to get rid of the electoral college.
Speaker 2:Well, we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic. The reason we have two chambers in the US US Congress is because when our country was founded, the southern states have small population, although they had at that time again were an agricultural country. They had a lot of economic power, but they didn't have as much population power representation In the northern states. Well, they were more populous and they want to have the Congress to be based on population. And I was like parliament. Smart guy named Benjamin Franklin basically came and said well, why don't we just have both? And that's how we have the US Senate, which represents the states, and why we have US House representatives, that represents the populations. So there's good reason for it, because the truth matter is is that if we had a president elected by just popular vote, presidential candidates only campaigned by states New York, california, illinois, florida and Texas and screwed the rest of the nation, you wouldn't have to pay attention to them. Okay, and that's just the reality. I've been a 30-year marketer. That's just the reality of it. It's sort of the vast majority of our population is. But because we're a republic, you have, like Iowa, where they have to come in and campaign in Iowa, then New Hampshire, and people may not understand why Iowa and New Hampshire are the one, that what they are is they're small states. So the idea is to give candidates that don't have a lot of money, a lot of connections, a chance at gaining a public attention in these small little states that you can travel in a day and go back and forth in a day, and as a point I mean Iowa and New Hampshire. It gives a little candidates a chance to break out. Well, I don't know, but I was telling someone that Jimmy Carter is a famous example of this. So Bill Clinton was a relatively low population of state.
Speaker 2:So my position is that I don't see the point of having two US senators scratching their butts in their home state. They will never go to Washington DC unless they just didn't want to get reelected. My position is that, well, who represents a state? When people think of a state, the person they think of is the governor. I don't know a single governor in American history that did not believe that they represented their state. There have been some people that have said well, we need people to pay attention to federal laws, just not state laws, like governors. Well, governors pay attention tremendously to whatever the federal government does, because it has an insane amount of impact, especially now, on what happens in their state. That's why you hear governors all the time expressing their opinions on federal legislation. That's coming up saying, hey, this is not going to be good for our state or wow, that's really great for our state. For whatever reason we're an allergy culture state, we're an industrial state, we're a high tech state, that type of stuff I just get a rid of a layer of government. All those US senators just lose their jobs and are replaced from 100 senators to 50 governors.
Speaker 2:With the House of Representatives I kind of like to the opposite. I explode. The House of Representatives in population. Right now there's 435 US House of Representatives. The reason we have that many is that's how many deaths we can comfortably fit into that chamber, literally. That's why we went up to like 437 when Hawaii and Alaska were added, but then we brought it back down to 435. It's just literally a furniture issue. They had taught them about creating new building, but that went over like a lead balloon, so they just restrict it. Now you have populations. If one state population grows, another population state decreases. That now a smaller state will lose a vote in the House of Representatives and the state that's growing will gain that vote. But let's say your state has 10 House of Representatives and your US State Assembly has 100 members. That's rather large for a state assembly. But just for easy math that means each of those state assembly members has 0.1% of a vote in the US House of Representatives. So when a bill is put forward, all those fractions are added up and we find out whether the bill passes or not.
Speaker 2:Just to deal with a little point here why the current state governor can be US Vice President some of you because he is Vice President is the most meaningless political position ever created in history. Will Rogers was a famous comedian, said he has the best job in the world. The only thing he has to do is wake up in the morning and say how is the President Some? Yeah, it's a meaningless thing, but US Vice President's existence meaning it's only dependent on the President and the President is in no way obligated or forced to share anything with the US Vice President. There have been when Presidents have been assassinated. It is real common that the Vice President is so out of the loop. They have to quickly bring him up to speed of what's going on in the country.
Speaker 2:There are some Vice Presidents that are very involved. Dick Cheney, with Bush Really guy, I can say they're evil, but really guy. Whenever he entered the room I felt that they should have had the Imperial March from Star Wars play. But Bush, who I feel like Tri-Pretend that he's really dumb, but actually he has an MBA. He was CEO of businesses and not just for show, but he wanted a Vice President that was going to be kind of like a partner, one that was not going to be challenging him for the presidency but was going, you know. So Cheney was really involved. Well, you look at his father, dan Clell. I don't know if he even received security briefings, you know, and there are times there are literally times in our history when the Vice President got nothing, was told nothing, you know, totally uninformed, and no one cared.
Speaker 2:Look at today, kamala Harris. What does she do Is what does Biden wants her to do or what you know? There's a question about you know who's running the country Biden or his handlers but whoever it is running the country, that's the jobs that she gets. She doesn't. There can be a negotiation and campaign when you you know a person is running for presidency and they want you to run as her Vice President. That's a lot of those people got to understand. That's your chance right then. That's, when you sit down, what you get for being a greener name on his ticket.
Speaker 2:Theoretically, vice Presidents are supposed to be totally qualified to take over the whole country. You know, truth matter is they're not. Truth, matter is they're brought on because the top of the ticket has some weakness that the bottom of the ticket might, might help. Donald Trump was liberal for almost all his life, was pro-abortion for almost all his life. He changed colors. People can do that, I get. Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat, okay, so that's what Pence was for, because he has strong connection to the evangelical community, the religious community. Look at Kamala Harris. What is she? She checks off two boxes. She's a minority and she's a woman and that's why she is put on there. I mean, there's no reason Kamala Harris should ever been by his Vice President. If you listen to the debate during their primary, she's accusing him of sexual assault and rape. And yeah, oh, you know she's 108 degrees. Oh, yeah, I love being your Vice President. Yeah, wow.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm actually going through a book right now about that campaign and it actually some of the staffers were saying in this in the original speech Joe Biden was supposed to say he was going to nominate a woman. He mistakenly just added the word of color. Oh, that's true. Yeah, I think he would.
Speaker 2:I think he would have done it anyways.
Speaker 1:I think he would have. The talk is he was leaning towards somebody like Amy Klobuchar to shore up the Midwest, but he said woman of color, and so his choices were very, very limited. Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, it's like like right now. But you see, when there's a candidate that's so strong, the Vice President becomes meaningless. And that's why George Bush senior, dan Quill, was meaningless, because George Bush senior was running on the coattails around Reagan. Okay, he, he was going to get into office, trump.
Speaker 2:Look at Trump right now. He's such a strong candidate in and of himself he doesn't need a Vice President. But you know so then, and because of that, I think there's. That's why there's such a lot of discussion about who he would pick for Vice President and a lot of times like, well, the strong candidate like Trump is not shoring up. When he first ran, he was short. He had to shore up his religious credentials. The religious community is behind Trump now, so he doesn't have to do that anymore.
Speaker 2:But with Trump, I think it's like when there is a strong presidential candidate who he picks as a Vice President is kind of like a message in and of itself. Who does he have? Who that person is is you can kind of say, oh, this is what he's trying to achieve, unless he's, like George Bush senior, just didn't care, he didn't need to send message, he was running on the coattails around Reagan. So, anyways, I just say that current governor can do it. We, like what we're having right now is we have instantaneous communication around the country. Current governor be present because there's nothing that president has to do.
Speaker 2:I think governors are are kind of a job and job train for the presidency because they're chief executive of their state. So I just again, it's just like a little bit parliamentary rules there saying, yeah, they can be that, because a lot of people say, oh, you have to, you have to retire, you have to give your governorship. Like some people, everyone. I don't think will happen now. My, you don't know what Trump's going to do, but for a long while before the Santies learned to, whoever's stupid advisors was telling him to run. He should just wait until 2028.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's what I was telling my friend from over at PNAT and I said all he needed to do was come out and doors, trump, and just wait till it's his time. And then I said I don't know who, who, I just thought it was bad, bad political strategy.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, he should have. But he, I think I think to be honest about, I think, a lot of big donors that were Democrat donors who are rather never Trumpers Basically calm down and running. I think he was. He's only hurt himself by running. This time he was unprepared. He had his hands full with his state alone. That was just a stupid mistake. He should have just come out and doors. Trump waited four years. Then he would have been the front runner for everyone. It didn't matter who Trump had as his vice president, he would have been the front runner coming out of that gate. And I don't think he should have even accepted if Trump had gone and say hey, would you like to be my vice president?
Speaker 2:If I think of Iowa's DeSantis, iowa says thank you. I appreciate that If you could say that publicly. I love you for that. But I won't remain governor because I think that will help me better when I run in 2028. Okay, I mean, that's not my. I'm a market, I'm a libertarian, a libertarian party. I have a 30 year marketer. That's what I would have advised the Santas is. But but he listened to someone who I don't think has his best interests in mind, just like Nikki Haley. Look at Nikki Haley. You see the oh. She did so well in New Hampshire. The polls taken afterwards the Democrats voted for her.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they have Democrats and independence, but I think the donors like Nikki Haley a lot. Oh yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because she's not viable. I mean, it's all be added, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:So we were just talking about a Nikki Haley and who wanted her to run in. And I just remember when she first launched her campaign, I just was in the group of people saying nobody wants Nikki Haley to run, like I didn't find anybody that was interested in Nikki Haley, except like the Bill Crystal types. You know, the Neo conservatives, yeah. The Never Trumpers, yeah.
Speaker 2:And also the industrial military complex.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, and I know that's a cliche phrase, but it actually exists. They're just the weapon makers. Okay, trump is anti their business. Okay, trump has said when he gets in office, within 24 hours, the Ukraine war will be over. Okay, he shut down wars. He did a star wars.
Speaker 2:Look at Biden. I think he started. He's trying to start off. What is one now? Isn't he? It's just, or his handlers are. I honestly do not believe Biden is president One. I don't believe.
Speaker 2:Well, I believe there are some shenanigans going on with the election. I do that happen, but that happens every time. Okay, look at the history. Shenanigans and elections happen every time. Well, john F Kennedy was elected. He didn't win the popular vote. There was a district in Chicago that voted 110% in favor of him. They went to the graveyards and got names and, unlike Al Gore, who challenged Bush, richard Nixon, who has always been treated as a villain, he did a stupid mistake with various secure men. But they asked him about challenging John F Kennedy and he said, for the good of the country, I will not. He could have, he could have had a legal challenge to it, but he said, for the good of the country, I will not, and that's how John F Kennedy became president. So, anyways, there's always been shenanigans. I think.
Speaker 2:I personally don't believe that Biden won the election. I believe COVID did. I believe COVID hit and someone had to pay a price, and that's at the top of the ticket, and it would just have to be Trump. I don't think there was any way around him not paying the price. Now the economy sucks because before COVID, our economy was just warring. That's why all the President's vocationaries by Democrats were, at best, second tier. They were people that just. They did not bring out their A team to go up against Trump for his reelection because the economy was warring.
Speaker 2:Like Bill Clinton said when he first ran for office and he was talking to his campaign staff, he said it's the economy, it's stupid. And that literally what he said is the economy is stupid. The President will be reelected or not reelected based on the economy. It's almost always been that case. The economy crashed with COVID. So you can argue well, it was still the economy that kicked Trump out of office, but it was the COVID that killed the economy.
Speaker 2:Anyways, now we have the buying economics. It's just a joke. There's, you know, there are spin doctors, can spin all you want, but when people go to a grocery store and they look at how much groceries cost them, go to the pump and look how much gas cost them, and was not less than four years ago, under Trump, that things weren't that way. So there's no chance that Biden's going to win re-election. They're just not. And there's no one who's going to step in and do and take his place. It's just impossible because, no matter what Democrat, if they replace Biden with our Democrat, they've admitted that they failed. It's just, you know, they're stuck with. Every party is stuck with the incumbent president. It's just the case.
Speaker 2:I don't think there's ever been a country's history where the incumbent president was not running for reelection, unless he personally dropped out Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson saw the polls and he knew he had no chance of getting reelected, so he dropped out of the race. That's the only way the otherwise he'll go down with the ship. Jimmy Carter, he caught me, crashed under him, okay, but he wanted to run for reelection, I don't reckon just walked all over him, okay. So, anyways, I'm going to get to up track, you Shall we continue on with the amendment?
Speaker 1:Oh, yes, yeah, we were on the past of presidents.
Speaker 2:Yeah, let's see. Just a little point there for people and Keith, if you wonder why I say that the governors and the state assembly members should not be compensated by the federal government, is because they're already compensated by their states. If they don't think they're being paid enough, well, they can pass a state law, a state budget that pays them more. I don't think we have to right now. We have a horrible federal government where you literally have the people that are going to benefit from the bill voting on whether or not they're going to give themselves a pay rate. It's just ridiculous. Okay, but the truth matters. If they put that up to the people's vote, they would never get a pay raise.
Speaker 1:They'd get a pay cut.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they'd get a pay cut. But then people would be complaining. Well then, only rich people run for office. Well, guess what happens right now? Only rich people run for office, you know. So section four this is the most popular section that I found out by the entire amendment.
Speaker 2:Section four the US president must physically visit every state in the union and US territory at least once a year. The first president to visit every state in union was George Washington. There's 13 states at that time. He went around in a carriage to visit every state. When he went to a city he would get out of his carriage, get on his famous white horse, which he was famous for, and ride that into town. George Washington felt that the people he governed should see who's governing them. They should physically see him. The next president that visited all states was Nixon. All the presidents between Washington and Nixon. None of them visited all 50 states and Nixon didn't visit all US territories. Of course it depends on how you classify a territory. You can call them four. You can call them, I think, up to 17. Like this thing here, I believe George Washington is right that the people should have a chance to see him.
Speaker 2:I think because there are 50 states and there's 52 weeks a year, I think every state's going to demand that the president visits their state for one week. I don't care how deeply democratic a state is and there's a Republican president. I don't care how deeply Republican a state is and there's a Democrat president, each state's going to demand the president come and spend one week in their state. Any president who does not is committing political suicide. They'll basically shoot themselves in the foot if they're trying to get reelected. But because we have term limits on them. I don't agree with that. But because we have term limits on a president, they won't be concerned about getting reelected because they can't be. They will be concerned about getting votes for their bills that they want to get passed from that state. I think even if you're a Democratic president, as deeply Republican a state, there are usually at least one or two districts that are Democrat.
Speaker 2:If you didn't come to their state, I would not be surprised that those Democrat House representatives go screw you, I'm not going to vote for your bill. You didn't come here, you didn't give repress. I don't care how anti-the-president US House representatives or senators, governors and US House states, they still want him to come so that they can get that national exposure. That's what it will be for the state. The nation will turn and for one week that state will have the attention of the nation and they'll want it. Their tourism industry will want it, the factory, the manufacturing industry will want it. They want to show off their state to the country If they have a good idea, and the president's not going to come there and treat these as local bunkers, hicks, because those governors are also US senators, those state assembly members are also US House representatives. You want them to vote for your bill. You smile for the camera and shake everyone's hand. For that week that state has the presidents here. I think every week you're going to see the president give an address to the joint, the legislative body in each state, because I think each state will require it. I don't think they'll always be covered by national press, but I tell you what every local TV station in that state is going to cover that address live. It gets them out and about and so this can bring about Number section 5.
Speaker 2:Section 5. The Capitol Hill building is no longer a functional building of the US Congress. The White House is no longer the residence or office of the US president. Both are made national monuments and turn over to the Smithsonian Institution for Preservation, historical Research and Public Tours. The District of Columbia is stripped of its federal status and returned to the state of Maryland. This kills Washington DC. People complain about the swamp draining. The swamp Mine is just leave the swamp. Right now, washington DC is a lobbyist paradise just a lobbyist paradise. They can literally walk down a hallway and meet with from door to door to door. Meet with US House representatives or US senators. If you ever go I've gone to Washington DC numerous times in my life you go to the most expensive restaurants and you see a US senator or US House representative eating there. They're not paying the bill. It's the lobbyists that's sitting next to them or somewhere at that table is picking up the tab for the entire party just to have that year or that US senator or US House representative for just a little bit of their time. They are. It's the lobbyists who invite the US senators, us House representatives, to come and golf with them at these really exclusive and insanely expensive golf courses in Washington DC. They don't pay for their green fees. The lobbyists do. The problem with Washington DC is everyone's kissing the presidents and the US senators and US House representatives ass. If it's not the lobbyists, it's the bureaucrats. Oh, senator, I really appreciate if you could increase your budget just a little bit, just a tiny little bit. I really appreciate that. Is there anything you'd like to have? That's where you have the Department of Interior or Department of Transportation, federal Transportation, including superhighways to nowhere because it's in that one congressman's district. They're just kissing ass to them. They're orc-barrel politics and just like probably they could wash with Hollywood Celebrities, start believing in their own press releases.
Speaker 2:Do you remember Miami Vice? There was a show called Miami Vice. Do you remember that one? Yeah, okay, they had two detectives. They're a total fantasy. They're wearing fashion clothes, they have a super, super car. But there were these two guys, and one was white, one was black. I forget what their names were, but the black actor won an Emmy for being on the show. Okay, great, you think that's great? And then he stupidly opened his mouth. I'm also now going to win an Oscar, a Tony, a Grammy, because he read his own press releases in Hollywood.
Speaker 2:Oh, you're great, you're great, you're great. And then eventually they'll say oh, I'm great, I must be great. Everyone's telling me I'm great, I must be great. And that's the problem. There you go, get on check. Same thing Washington DC. There are citizens in Washington DC. Okay, so they have lobbyists and they have federal bureaucrats kissing these congressmen's ass. But you watch them go back to their districts or their states, their famous videos of AOC. You know AOC is in the House of Representatives. When she goes back and talks to her constituents, they treat them like what they really are Public servants, not public masters. You listen to me, you know they there's, there's. They're not nice to them a lot of times, but that's because their view is a public servant.
Speaker 2:I voted in the Q of this. What the hell were you doing when you voted that way on that bill? This section of five five gets rid of that. They kiss them back to their districts. I then, you know, fire them. Okay, they no longer exist. They some of the members will are in their district. The governors are in their states. They're they're not treated like royalty in their states, they're treated like public servants.
Speaker 2:And a disaster happens. Everyone expects that governor to get in that, get in his you know pickup truck and go down and take a look what's happening. I'm from Wisconsin. We had a huge rain. A lot of rain came and there were a lot of mudslides, and at that time it was governor Walker, and everyone exactly demanded that he come and take a look at the damage that was being done, because mudslides were were just wiping out roads. And he did, and that's what governors do. So this is killed. Washington DC, I it, just so. Congress is out of it. The president no longer lives, no longer works there, so the only thing left is a Supreme court, and the Supreme court absolutely does Not give a shit what people think of that. Okay, they got their own thing going on. In fact, you can't even get into seat. There's no public gallery.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:As a pre-court hearing is closed sessions. You got to be a constitutional scholar or a lawyer and if you're a lawyer, you're there because you're presenting some case to them and and to get to them is unbelievable process. I mean it's just not losing. You go through the courts, but they had to go through the appellate courts. It is not an easy process. So I don't think the Supreme court is going to care what Maryland says to them. They just go look at them and say who are you Get out of here, you know, and then Maryland better stay capitol than Annapolis. Okay, they're not going to relocate their state capital to Washington DC. They're going to be thinking of a phone marketing perspective. What Maryland state politician wants to have a stink of DC on them? They're going to be no, no, that's fine. You know. You, just, you, just you, just you'll be our biggest city. That's fine.
Speaker 2:But we're staying here and there's a lot of states that the biggest city is not the state capital. I'm from Wisconsin. Madison is the state capital, but walkie is, I like you know, several times larger. Chicago is several times larger. What is it the claims I think is in is the state capital of Illinois. So it's really common. I mean, new York City is not the state capital of New York City. That's Albany, isn't it? Is that?
Speaker 1:Albany? Yeah, I'm actually not sure with that, okay.
Speaker 2:But I think it's Albany. It's not the largest. So Maryland has this. We just strip it out there. And now Maryland.
Speaker 2:There's been a lot of talk about, well, making the District of Columbia the 51st state. Well, there's a reason. Why it was created was so that, hopefully, a state didn't try to have too much influence on the federal government. Well, the federal government's gone now. All the US senators and congressmen are back at their states. The president is traveling around on Air Force One.
Speaker 2:So in the Supreme Court, I could actually see this. I could actually see the Supreme Court actually not being in Washington DC anymore. I could actually see where they went. Because they're not there all the time they're in session and they're out of session. When they're out of session, basically, they're looking through all the cases that are coming up before them. They're deciding what they're going to hold court on, basically, and then when they think they got basically enough to handle court, then they clawed into session. They had emergency sessions. They recently had one for the Texas border. I could actually see the Supreme Court having the wisdom of traveling around the country, being in a different state every time they come into session. That would be that. If they were, I don't give a shit, but if they did, that would be a really good thing for them to do because they'd get out and the people would see them. I mean, at least feel that they're not holding up someplace where no one knows them.
Speaker 2:Anyways, might as well hit the last section here, section six. This is a little bit different than everything else, but it does relate to the states. Any country, section six. Any country can become a US territory of two-thirds and open, free, nationwide referendum for to do so For at least five years as a US territory. A US territory can become a US state if at least two-thirds of its population can rewrite and reverse in American English to an eighth grade level and then at least two-thirds vote in favor in an open and free territory-wide referendum. Any US state or territory can succeed from the USA by a simple majority vote in an open and free state-slash territory-wide referendum.
Speaker 2:I brought this to this about because there had been in our history a lot of dirty politics on how territories can become territories and especially how territories can become states. In our Bill of Rights we have female religion, but when Utah, the territory of Utah, what remained of it after all of your states were carved out of it. When they asked to become a state of the United States, the Congress basically said no, no, you got polygamy. You outlaw polygamy and that will make you a state. Well, polygamy is part of their religion, but they want to be a state more, and so they outlaw polygamy. Oh, that didn't stop polygamy. The reality shows today about the sister wives of whatever. That was blatantly against the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 2:There is Missouri. If you look at Missouri map, it's called the heel of Missouri. There's a little chunk of Missouri that goes down into, I think, louisiana. That's because of one guy that had connections. Because of him, that became part of the state of Missouri. That's it, dactore, dirty politics. So I just make it clean. It's kind of a clean way of doing it. I make it really hard. I've had people that, oh, the whole world's gonna join us. Then you know, oh, like is that? That would be a bad thing. I don't think it would be. But it's not.
Speaker 2:To pass a bill on House representatives, you have to have a simple majority. To pass a significant bill and say used to be that you had to have what's called a super majority, which is 60% or better. Two thirds is actually 66.66, infinity percent, in favor. So these are really. They have to pass. It's not just once, they have to pass it twice, and to pass it a second time they have to first have their population. At least two thirds of them have to be no English to an eighth grade level, which is what all newspapers are written at is the eighth grade level, and so it's a really hard way for any country to join our country.
Speaker 2:Will some countries do so? Yeah, I think some countries will. I think there are some countries that are that are well, trump once said what shit hole countries. There are countries that are coming out of civil war and we're situations that might just go. You know, instead of us reinventing the wheel, wow, we could just join the United States. I think, if this was, if this section was law when the Berlin Wall fell, I wonder what Eastern Bloc country wouldn't have joined the United States. You know, well, all countries do it. No, japan, whenever Japan likes being Japan.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Okay, israel is never gonna join this as a state. Israel is a Jewish state. Israel is always gonna be Israel. Okay, there are certain countries that have their own identity. France, oh my God, they're ego alone.
Speaker 1:I will prevent France from ever joining the United States Not just gonna join it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, just their ego alone. Oh, hell, no, no, they'll be so humiliating for the French. But who knows the future? They're like, hey, wow, this is you know. Would you like him to join it? I could see it. Okay, could a major country join it, like India, maybe? I think any country that joins us, I think it's just gonna. Their economy is going to boom.
Speaker 2:We are the largest economy. We are an economy that we could literally shut our borders, literally shut our borders. And there's very, very, very, very, very few things that we would not need. Okay, that we don't already produce ourselves Even the rare minerals. We're developing a rare mineral mine in the United States right now. Okay, we can provide our own fuel. We can provide our own food. We really don't need the rest of the world. If we were just shut our borders, we're good. A lot of countries can't do that. China, for all its bluster, is absolutely dependent on the world. You go to China and you drive 10 miles outside of Shanghai and you're in a third-road country. I mean, we're literally watching ox plow fields, water buffaloes plow fields. So, and I would love to, if this were to happen, I would love to have the worst country in the world, I don't care what it is. Somalia, okay, public done.
Speaker 2:Democratic Republic of Congo I think it was called Love to have one that joined our country. Well, they're joining us. We're not joining that, okay. So they're adjusting to our system, our politics, our economy. Work-hapless country. And I think businesses would flood that new country because it's oh, we come in there, we know all the rules, regulations we're not gonna have. I think they'd just be flooded. American businesses would just flood in there and they're kind of at boom and then all the countries around them would see this country as a shithole country. All of a sudden they have a booming economy. They might go hey, I wouldn't mind that myself, but not all. Again, not everyone do. Japan never will. Israel never will. I think Russia would. There was a pull when the Soviet Union collapsed, russians and it was almost exactly sad asking if you could, would you like Russia to join the United States of America? And it was like 80% in favor. It was some insane amount. Now that was. Of course there's turmoil, et cetera. Again, would they do that now? I?
Speaker 2:don't know, you know.
Speaker 1:If people wanted to further explore your ideas on the States First Amendment, where can they find your work and you're discussing it in further detail?
Speaker 2:Well, right now it's just Twitter. It's just. If you go to ad symbol, jack T Decker, j-a-c-k-t-d-e-c-k-e-r. That's it. Right now I'm laying this thing, or Gain, it's a good grow. Right now, I'm just cutting my teeth on podcasts, like you, and just seeing where we'll go. I'm not realistically, there's probably no chance that this amendment's gonna be added to the Constitution. It's just. That's the reality of almost all amendment proposals. My goal is mainly have this as bringing this into the public debate. That's one of my goals. Do I think it has an actual possibility that could succeed? Yeah, I actually do, because I'm not playing to the politicians better nature. I'm playing to their less than better nature. This is a power grab by the states. This is the states coming in and taking power away from the federal government, and it's also a power grab by the assenters, even though I kicked all of them out. If this were to pass, all your senators would lose their jobs.
Speaker 1:But they would have an opportunity to run for election in their states and battle it out with the governors, I mean. So it could be temporary.
Speaker 2:You bet. And then there are states. There are smaller states, like Wyoming and Montana, that only have one US House representative. In fact, there are six states with only one US House representative, seven with only two, two with only three and six with only four. But even if you're one of those that have your one US House representative out of four out of your state, well, you've already won a quarter of your state. Go to Los Vegas and ask them what. You know, those are grots. Ok, if you want a quarter, you're very likely to go in the other quarters. And so those are.
Speaker 2:That's 50 US House representatives as well, in addition to the hundred US House US senators. And all of them have won statewide elections. Well, the six US House representatives that are only one in their state have won statewide elections, and so they're all going to look at the governor. You know, and let's think about it, every politician has an insane ego. You can't be a politician without having the same ego, the brutality they have to experience when they're campaigning. If they didn't have a massive ego, they would never be able to withstand it. It's just a fact. And so they all think, you know, are they better than the governor? You know?
Speaker 1:Yeah, of course I'll take out that guy. He's an idiot. Especially if they've been in the federal government going down to the states, they definitely think that they are better than the local, local states.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, and not including the states. They have terminally missed on their governor. That governor might not be able to run next election cycle, and so you know those US, those two US senators, and especially when they're small states, or if it was the speaker of the current speaker of the House and wanted to run out for his governorship, he has enough of a profile that he'll be able to do it. Yeah, all of them are Basically what I've done. Right now, there's only two real meaningful ways to go in the White House. There's just there's only two really meaningful ways. That is, either as a governor or as a US House representative. You've got to carry at least a state. I don't know if there's ever been a situation where a US House representative has won the presidency.
Speaker 2:You know what I've done and something mean there are oddballs. I mean Trump Oddball. Okay, not being negative, but just unusual. Okay, I, but he was well known. He was an international celebrity. I know his drag tractor say, oh, he's just a Reality star, like as if that's a swipe at him. No, the reason why he is a reality star is because he is a real estate tycoon. That is the.
Speaker 2:The show is literally called the apprentice. You're trying to be an apprentice to this Real estate tycoon and hopefully learn something from him in a year being his apprentice. That's what you're all fighting for, supposedly, now that you know, now they have the celebrities and you know they're not refining, be his apprentice, they're just doing for listy. But then you know they are rare instances, or well, I, generals, george Washington, you will. This is this grand Our yeah, yep, ike. When Iraq war was over, a lot of people thought that how should run for it. He didn't. I think it was wise, because it was not. I Don't think it was the scale World War, two Civil War, revolutionary War, but he did. And agency didn't want to be a politician, but he was involved.
Speaker 1:everybody wanted portrays to run and I remember General Stanley McChrystal did start running but he didn't want to run in any of the major parties. I didn't really go anywhere. He did mountain yeah and and Eisenhower.
Speaker 2:They didn't know what party he was gonna be part of. Both parties are trying what parties knew he was gonna win it, he would become president and they're both trying to pitch him on Running for their, for their party. They didn't know he just he was. He was a wise Military leader that kept his politics to himself, okay, so he didn't. So the politics didn't get in Out of the Iraq war. I think Storm and Norman would have had the best chance if anyone was gonna do it. He was basically the patent of the Iraq war. You know, and look at MacArthur he won run for the presidency.
Speaker 2:Okay, he was the basically the five star general of the Pacific theater and, but he caused enemies. He made his intentions known well, well before. He should let his intentions be made known, eisenhower, to make his attention, know that he wanted to be a run for office While he was general. No one knew anything. He kept his mouth shut. He went answering questions, anything like that. He is out. I think it's most common reply is I think that got something going on right now. That requires more attention. You know World War two, yeah, so you know, and it was like yeah, yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, that's, that's. That probably is what your attention should be focused on. Yeah, yeah, I think I think I'll pay attention here now. You can't come back to the way and talk to me afterwards. And then afterwards it was I like hike, you know, and people for it for him, they didn't care what party he was. He was part of, you know, he was our Republican Party.
Speaker 1:But those my my last my last question for you, just just a random one in in the in the to set up for this Amendment. Do you think this will give a chance for people outside of the Republican and Democratic parties to have a chance to Win some of their local elections and even the presidency? Something's like the Constitutionalist Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party Does this. Does this help them better or does this?
Speaker 2:oh yeah, somewhat crippled. This helps them. It helps. I don't think that when the presidency not for possibly ever Right now Like, okay, let's use New Hampshire right now.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of libertarians moving to New Hampshire. There are libertarians in their state assembly. There are members of the state assembly who are libertarians. This would make them for a first time. Besides, you know Tom Assey Switching to libertarian part, but he didn't get elected as a libertarian gal at that, as Republican, and on his way out he joined libertarian party. So you know the ten part. I can say they actually had a member in Congress, but he was, he never was planning to run on a libertarian party ticket. But no, is.
Speaker 2:I take a look at the okay, right now there's 435 US House representatives. With my amendment that would change of 5,462, because that's how many state assembly members there are. So there's a. You have those odds and and in some states New Hampshire they have 400 members in their state assembly. Now the small state is Alaska. They have only 40 members in their state assembly, but they're also a very small population. So that's a left up to those states and how many members they have in their state assembly and then how many votes they get. In the US House of Representatives is divided by that number.
Speaker 2:But for a third party is yeah, there's already libertarians in the state assembly of New Hampshire and yes, this would help third parties Not simply came momentum. But, yeah, you have to understand the thing about I know I'm a libertarian. I've been libertarian for 40 years. I have always voted libertarian. I never voted for Trump on on 2016, on 2020, yeah, unless he makes Ryan Paul or His VP candidate, I'll probably still be voting for libertarian. Take it Okay, if you won't have Trump made Rampal his VP, I'd vote for Trump. But that's been only a vote for, for ramp all and so a position of perfectly for 2028.
Speaker 2:But the Republican and Democrat parties of our have morphed. I've always morphed. They're afraid of vote splitting. A lot of a lot of Democrats don't know that when you pulls in the street, they ask you a Republican Democrat party, which one was the party of slavery, and so many people say Republicans, this Democrats. The Democrat party is the party of the Ku Klux Klan. Democrat party was a little party of the Jim Crow laws. The big Democrat party was the slave states, but they changed. Start with FDR when he brought about his new deal and he gave a whole bunch of welfare benefits to the black community. And then, all of a sudden, black people oh hey, someone's willing to give us free money. Yeah, we'll vote for them. And they just morph over time.
Speaker 2:John F Kennedy if he was alive today he probably considered a Republican. If you saw what his politics were, he is all capitalism. He was, I mean, you know of Let go. I think it was Ron Reagan. I didn't change, the party changed, and that's happens always recently. Well, with the Republican Party In the 80s, there was the religious right. They were part of a public.
Speaker 1:Hey guys. So I actually I got Jake back on. We Got cut off abruptly during the last episode, so I wanted him to finish off his thoughts on the morphing of the parties and any other context he wanted to add. Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 2:Well, I have me back. Is took us a little while to get reconnected, so yeah, thanks.
Speaker 1:So what were you just finished?
Speaker 2:your thoughts on the morphing of the party, the Republican Party. They were Within the Republican Party. There was a was called the religious right off. They also called themselves a silent majority and they were not. They were upset with Republican Party and both parties, but mainly Republican Party, that they were not as religious as they wanted them to be and, out of fear of Vote splitting, voting for more than one party, thus your opponent, who you consider your to your opponent party, would then win an election. Republican Party became more religious. They added an anti-abortion element to their platform. They incorporate more religious terminology in their platform.
Speaker 2:Uh, the Democrat Party. This is just to prevent the religious right, the sound majority, leaving the party and Starting up their own party. Um, okay, I think they were gonna call those sound majority and that's all. Fear that uh, the. That was with the vote that would have conservatives voting for some conservatives voting for uh them. It wasn't considered uh, a huge percentage Um voting for them, but it doesn't take a lot of percentage Um to lose an election. Um, likewise, in the 90s, uh, the Democrat Party had the same problem.
Speaker 2:Um, there was the green party. That was uh Came over from Europe. I said the Green Party was an environmentalist, communist party and they were threatening um. They were growing in numbers, uh, ralph Nader uh was their candidate at one time, and they Were growing in popularity and that was a threat to the Democrat Party. And so this is why the Democrat Party um became more pro environmentalism and more communist um. You look at the, the changes that they made, and that was to to prevent Democrats from voting for the Green Party. Or, just again, not all of them, just a uh small percentage of the Democrats. They're they're afraid of voting for the Green Party, and to them, that was splitting their vote.
Speaker 2:Um. And you don't need much To lose an election. Uh, for example, there's the libertarian party. Um, I've been a member of it for like 40 years and if you look at last um Few presidential elections, the libertarian party vote covers was called the spread.
Speaker 2:The spread is that if um the libertarian vote had voted for the party that had lost the election, if they, if um, that party would have actually won the election. So, um, the libertarian party typically only gets between five and 10 percent of the vote, but that's enough uh to lose elections. And so the um, the, the major parties, are not set in stone. Uh, they've evolved over time. They'll continue to evolve over time. Um, I don't think. And in case you're you're wondering why the neither party has ever absorbed kind of absorbed libertarian party is because libertarian party is Can be viewed well. It is is, uh, fiscally respectful, socially tolerant. So that's why those on the far left call libertarian party far right because of their economic positions, but uh, many libertarians are to the left of other democrat party when it comes to social issues. And and may the republican party don't call a libertarian party far left, but they call them hippies Is because of their social policies.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and when I was growing up in florida we used to hear that. When I was growing up in florida I would hear them a lot. They used to say uh, a libertarians, a republican who wants to have prostitutes and smoke pot.
Speaker 2:Yeah and um, so I mean that's that's why, but that's why the both the two major parties can't absorb libertarian party. Um, libertarian party is also By-large, but not always, not not 100, but it's pro-abortion. So that element is not because of that alone I it can't be absorbed into the republican party, but it can't be absorbed into a democratic party because it is very, very much pro-capitalism and is for a small government. Uh, it's just the nature of it. Um, I could see the reality of it is. I could see the democratic party Absorbing the repou the libertarian party. If the libertarian party were to stop mainly campaigning on their economic issues and campaign on their social issues and then, um, I think they would be a threat to the democratic party then, um, more than they are a threat to the republican party and um, so it's just, it's just the nature of the beast. It's just our politics as they are now.
Speaker 2:Um, I'm is is To the listeners of there's. There's been a three week gap here. Um, I'm, I'm not sure if I cover why the. I think this uh amendment actually has a real viable chance of Uh succeeding. Do you remember if I cover that?
Speaker 1:Um, no, we didn't, uh you, you were just saying you were trying to put it into public consciousness and you actually had said that you didn't. Uh think it had a great chance of succeeding. Uh, the last time we did it.
Speaker 2:I, I, I don't um any libertarian any. Any amendment has a really rough road to travel. Um, there have been numerous amendments. Very few have ever succeeded. Uh, we've actually had one amendment that was added to the constitution, 18th amendment, which was the prohibition of alcohol. That was then repealed, um, because it was just a disaster bill. Um, that's what we gave us organized crime, or rather, what that gave us heavily funded organized crime that we have still to this day. Um, they just moved to other, uh, illegal drugs.
Speaker 2:Um, I believe this. If this amendment has a chance, I believe is um, because it appeals not to the good nature of politicians, but appeals to the, the bad, their bad nature. Um, and by that I mean they're agreed for power. Uh, this amendment would give power, more power, to the state politicians, the governors and the state assembly members, and actually also gives more power to your senators. I'll explain in a second. But from the state standpoint Um, the state assembly members gain power in the House representatives and they gain power in the federal government. They don't have that today. The governors gain power in the us Senate um, they don't have that today. And the states can call for what's called constitution convention, and this does not need the approval or permission of the congress or the or the president. They can just call this, and it's been a threat commonly. In fact, they're still moving out. They're calling for a constitution, convention, um and the bsf for the.
Speaker 2:The main the Democrats and Republicans in Congress is that if they don't do this, then there can be other sweeping changes that they don't want to have. They're then totally out of control of the federal government. The states take over control of the federal government and by adding amendments to the Constitution, they can do basically whatever they want. That alone, I think, would be giving an incentive for the states to do that, because it gives them power. I think the US senators also want to have this power. Well, we guess I would fire all the current US senators, but they've already won statewide elections and that's how they became US senators.
Speaker 2:So when they look at the governor, I'm sure there's no politician, even a local dog catcher, that does not have a massive ego. You can't be a politician without a massive ego. For all the abuse and the slings and the arrows and the mud slinging that they have to endure, if you don't have a massive ego, I just don't see how you can be a politician. So you're going against odds. So I think these US senators will look at their governor going. I can take this guy out. I'm sure they think that they're better than their governor. That's an idiot.
Speaker 2:But you also see that there's some states that are term limits, so that governor might not be able to do even one for the US House representative for the governorship next election cycle. So here are these US senators and my amendment gives them more power. Again, never stand between a politician and more power. My amendment doubles their power in the US Senate and gives them the governorship. It is too juicy of a target for them not to go after. And then you look at the US House representatives. There are many states. In fact there are six states that only have one US House representative Alaska, wyoming.
Speaker 2:So here are US House representatives that have already won a statewide election. It's just that they won it for the US House. But then you look at even them. There are seven US House representatives that have one that were. There's seven states. They have two US House representatives. There are two that have three US House representatives and there are six that have four US House representatives. Let's just take the last one. You already won a quarter of your state. You've won it.
Speaker 2:You don't think that politician think that he can win, or she can win the other three quarters? Yes, very, very likely. They know that they can, because if you want a quarter of a population and when they're basically outright okay, you think that you have pretty good odds of winning the other three quarters. And so, right there, you have 50 US House representatives, more than 11% of the US House representatives that will view themselves going yeah, I could take out the governor, you know so that they will want to have that power. So my amendment actually if my amendment has any viable chance of succeeding is because this is a power grab by the states and power grab by the US senators and power grab by over 11% of US House representatives. Now there is a you know, 89% of the US House representatives, that will be out of a job and their chances of winning their governorship decreased. But even those, you know, again, they have massive egos. Even if they're like in I think California has 52 or 53 US House representatives, I wouldn't be surprised some of them would go yeah, I can take a shot, I've already won, you know, 150th of the state.
Speaker 2:But there is then, but they don't have, I don't think they'll have, the support of the US Senate.
Speaker 2:Because the US senators are going yeah, I want the governorship and I want to tell them my power in the Senate, you know. So they don't have the US, I don't think they'll have the US Senate support and they'll lose 10% of, I think at least 10% of US House representatives support, because they're also eyeing their governorship for more power. But then there's also the state's threat that if you don't do this, we'll call a Constitution Convention and I just don't see where they can hold up against it. And also, if this amendment gets to that point where there's public we have to have public support for this and where the people go, yeah, we, you know, let's have Congress tell me, you know, like many of their constituents, due to this day, it's not something. It's not something like you know. Far future is not Star Trek, it's no, there's I every, almost everyone today knows someone who's telecommuting to work almost every day, and so it's not like it's an alien concept. Oh, how can we possibly ever do this when you know Joe Horthage says I do it every day.
Speaker 2:You know, I'm in, I'm stuck in meetings, I have video conference calls forever and I'm not wearing pants you know, you know and you know if this happens you know this happens there's going to be a state assembly member or a governor, et cetera, who's going to not be wearing pants and they're going to, I have to mind, at least stand up and that's going to get on camera and it's going to be a, it's going to be a viral moment.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's pretty funny. I actually. I actually know a pastor who you know doing who he did. Yeah, he stood up and he had, he had on pants, but his pants were pajama bottoms, His top, his top was the, he had the collar on and everything. And you know it was pretty funny yeah.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, and you know there's I and some I hear my okay, I've had some of the lesser known state assembly members might just do that for the publicity. I think everyone's going to chuck up, but they're not going to record it against them. And I bet you, if it's an attractive female state assembly member that looks good in, you know, panties, I think it's not going to be too much of an accent when they do it, because they're going to go like this, you know, but I mean it's going to be hilarious. So it's not an alien concept. They're going to, I think. But I mean the reality is is that to get to that point, this has to have obviously more public exposure. Right now I'm just in the beginnings of this. If your viewers, listeners sorry, if your listeners would like to see where this is going right now, pretty much the only thing they can do is they can go and follow my Twitter account, which is the at symbol Jack, j, c, k, t, decker, d, e, c, k, e, r and follow me there. I'm just kind of letting this grow. I naturally grow at this point.
Speaker 2:I have been doing podcast interviews like this. I've done over four. I think I'm now over 16. Other than I've done. I'm almost. I'm like within a hair's breath. I've done a thousand followers on Twitter and I have a very successful.
Speaker 2:When I was, when I was less than a hundred followers on Twitter, a major, a very, very popular YouTuber followed me and he contacted me and he won me on my show. I'm like, oh he smokes. Part of me was like excited wow, I'm doing this gigantic exposure. Part of me was like I hadn't even done any podcast interviews at this time. I really felt like, am I ready for this? Unfortunately, in a way, he said but and normally I hate when you someone says, but you know, I donate to you, but um, he said I had to get a million followers on Twitter before I'll have, before he'll have me on his show.
Speaker 2:I initially took that as well. I have to bring something to his table. You know he's he would be helping me out tremendously and I would. I'd be very little I would bring to his. So I thought that's why he was doing it.
Speaker 2:But since um, he's been following me every time I've been on these podcasts that I've put links to um and, if you want to hear other um podcasts, that I've done both um audio only. And video. Uh, if you go to my Twitter exit county, go to the my profile, there there's a section called posts and it puts links to um, the the talk show episodes that I've been on which I would do with this one when you give me the link to it and um, you can listen to other ones that I've done and um, he's been listening to them and he has been either calling me up or, uh, sending me an email with notes on what he thought I did right or wrong. Um, and kind of like. Well, I mean, one note was um, your answer to this question was fantastic. You can try to memorize that, that answer, so you give it again. And it'd been yeah, everyone's like, wow, you really gooped on that I did. Yeah, I try not to do that again. Um, so I mean so and I think it's a positive that I'm um, he's waiting until I get to a million followers because I've just been improving time and timing.
Speaker 2:A common error in the beginning was I got the definition of federalism wrong. I would have federalist was. I was using the, the international definition, and here in America we have a different definition. So, um, but now I've corrected that and um, there's just our stuff, it's just um, but it's amazing how many people, how many people on Twitter, have actually gone back and listened to old you know. They've gone back and, like, listened to these previous um episodes, even the first one. I just, you know, I was expecting them to just be listening to the most recent one I posted, but a lot of them go back and listen to a lot of them, which I hope they do for you.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:It's actually pretty pretty decent.
Speaker 1:Um, I, because I look at the stats, you know often, and I'll see, it'll tell me how many downloads I've got and I'll say like, oh, wow, somebody's listened to an episode I did two years ago and then I kind of just, I just kind of wonder, like uh, sometimes, like what, what drives them to that, like I do? They either in the search engine or they're scrolling down and what was it? You know the way I titled something, so, but I try my best not to uh somewhat chase the algorithm around. I just, uh, do oh.
Speaker 2:I'm not even into that stage. I'm not chasing anything. Yeah, I'm a beggar on the street with my 10 cup going Anyone else yeah?
Speaker 1:My thing is, uh, I just formally talked about things that I thought were important and then this year, um, I just got on a pod match. So it's just me trying to pull other voices in. Uh, to to um, give that, give them a chance to talk about you know themselves, their, their, their stories, if they have, you know, great ideas to have a more centralized power. You know, um, I kind of say if, if me and somebody has have the same goals and they're further along, it's my job to keep helping them to get further and further. Uh, not not to try to pretend like I'm the only one, uh, that that can do something you know, so you know.
Speaker 2:I'm sure, and, like I was actually right now, um, a lot when I. I get a lot of DMs lately and I began with more and more DMs. Um, that's direct. For those of you listeners on Twitter, that's a direct message, and the unfortunate thing about a DMs is they're not public. So if you don't see them and um, I'm coming to almost a point now where I'm going to have to not, I'm going to have to send them a DM saying could you and I haven't been asking them to do this Could you post this as a an original tweet or as a reply to one of my, one of my tweets? None of them have done that, and so I I mean I have then answered that question, um, but eventually, if this thing takes office, I'll get to a point where I just won't have the time to reply to DMs. So if anyone wants to ask me a question, the best thing would be to reply in a tweet or a public tweet. Yeah.
Speaker 1:See, when I I get, you know, when I get a bunch of direct messages there's, there's a certain point in time where I answer questions on the uh uh show and I also have a voicemail call in. So I take all those DMs and I use it for content. I just will leave the people, I'll just I'll just leave the people's names out of it and I'll say you know, I got a listener who sent a question. Da da, da da. Thank you for the question. This is the answer. There's a lot of times, you know, especially when you cover horse race politics, like I am, it kind of gets very all right, trump did this. All right, trump did this, or anything. I see you're going to have 27 episodes talking about what, what.
Speaker 2:Donald Trump did. Yeah, Well, the repetitive, the questions are old there. Um, the questions are so repetitive I have now over a hundred files on my, on my desktop that just gives the standard reply to that question. Oh, and it just, you know, but it happens even with the public tweets. Yeah, you know, I understand. I mean, this is the first time they've thought that question and they didn't go through all my, all the tweets I've ever done. Um, but there's just, it's a repetitive nature of of the questions which I try to answer when I'm on shows like you.
Speaker 2:I try to, um, since I've been doing these shows, not just with the questions I get and the questions I get in the tweets, et cetera. I try to incorporate that when I when I'm on show like yours so that hopefully those questions are answered by me doing so. Um, you know, right now I'm just focusing on doing podcasts. I'm trying to do the main podcast. I can't um, because I was, I had surgery recently, um, and there's a big, there's a big bandage on my face right now. So I'm going to be stopped doing um video podcasts until that goes away. Um, but I'm going to. I'm not shifting to just audio podcasts. Um, committed to. I really don't think we want to see the bandage. Um, yeah, just it's, it's huge Um and uh.
Speaker 2:So that's what I'm doing and then, once I exhaust all the podcasts I can get on and I have more. I've got like 10 more scheduled um then I plan to radio talk shows. Once I exhaust them, then I hopefully can get on TV talk shows and eventually I'm hoping that mainstream media picks up on this, but it really does need to be uh, be very popular before the politicians rule uh, start acting on it, and that's natural. It's just like, just like that YouTuber, that popular YouTuber, saying you need a million followers and XB Pro heavy on my show. I can normally do this until there it becomes popular and then they'll, they'll put their two cents in and I think, I think it has to get to that point. It has to get where it becomes part of the public discourse, and that's where I'm right now just trying to inject it into it. It might never go any further than this.
Speaker 1:Are you familiar with uh, uh, thomas Massey? Yes, yes, so he used to do a thing called um sassy with Massey, Uh and um. What I do like about him as as a representative is he would actually engage with the his uh constituents on Twitter regularly. It was a segment he do call sassy and Massey and there's actually a sister show, uh Luns B with T-Bone and Chick-Bru. They got up there one day, uh Tony did and started messaging uh the senator and he actually messaged him, messaged him back. He responded.
Speaker 2:All right, that's cool.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and every now and then, you know, I, I I only go on Twitter now or X to post the show, but I used to go up there and Nancy Pelosi or somebody would say something and I'd make sure I replied back. You know, and it was, it was just even though they may not see it, the general public, the general public is seeing it. And that was kind of my the goal when I used to do that and it was, I think over time I just kind of slowed down on arguing with people over over Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and everything like that.
Speaker 2:Well, right now, this is, um, I looked at when I go on talk shows. I, when I listened to talk shows or watch talk shows. I'm really not a big fan of when the guests are bringing up this laundry list of everywhere you can find me I am on Twitter, I'm on Instagram, I'm on Facebook and I've been a marketer for 30 years and I know that, um, those are all call out of actions. I mean, you go a laundry list of call to action. People typically do none of them and that's why I only, that's why I only give one call to action, which is Twitter, and I I spent a lot of time thinking which one do I want to do, and when Elon Musk took over Twitter, uh, it is not. It's not a permit. Um, it's not an absolute free speech, but it's a lot fear. That was under the old regime, and so that's why I picked that one, and also it's a better way. I think it's a better way to interact with people, so that's why I picked that one, so I just focused on that one. I've had other people tell me some people say, oh, you should be on Instagram, so doing what? I don't understand that one, yeah, but I mean, that's why I'm not.
Speaker 2:I'm started up a YouTube channel. Um, it's just. Um. What I've had ever so often is after done. Um, I've had this offered three times from the podcast about joining their. How did one of them put it there? They're sick of clowns or something like that. Um, I've been being a regular member on their show. Um, I really haven't done that. Um, the other man focusing on just getting up on a new podcast, reaching a new audience, um, and maybe, down the line, write down it anytime soon, and my hope is is that this becomes popular enough. So the only thing I do on Twitter is reply to public tweets. That's my hope and I do nothing more. I do. I. I reply to other hosts et cetera, but that's just to raise my, my ex profile. You know my, my presence on X, um, but you know, eventually, hopefully, I just reply to public tweets about this thing. So that, let me ask her again if people like to follow me. Um, I'm the ad symbol, jack T Decker. Um, and just, I guess, working to a million to get in that show.
Speaker 1:So Well, uh, we hope that you do get to your million on Twitter. Um and uh, thank you for coming on to the show. Is there anything else you'd like to add before we wrap up?
Speaker 2:Nope, um, um again. If anyone has a question, um, so you can leave it. I personally would appreciate if you could do it in a public tweet on Twitter. Um, so that's about it. I thank you for having me on your show. Um, this is um. We've been in a unique experience.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we'll have you back on as a time goes by a little bit to, as you creep up in those followings, and so we can uh see.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, I want, I want we could see. I've always told um, not all of them, but and but you would be one of them. Um, this thing ever does take off. Um, I will not forget those who helped me when I was a nobody. Um, no matter how no, I'm serious no matter how big I get, um, if I'm how, I'm not having with Trump or Biden or whoever. I consider this a bipartisan thing. This does does not. I don't view this thing as a Republican idea or Democrat idea. They're not even a libertarian idea. Uh, this is just something that I think has a potentially more than bipartisan support universal support. But if I take off in this day itself, invite me back, I'll, I'll come. I always I plan to return the favor to you and other podcasts that have me out when I was nobody. So, uh, don't, don't be afraid to reach out and ask me to come back on.
Speaker 1:And I definitely won't be. Thank you so much. So we've had the pleasure of interviewing uh Mr Jack Decker. Now just a little bit about um uh Jack.
Speaker 1:Now, jack um is a he kind of has some of the same uh background that I have. Um, he is a military veteran one, so he actually, like my older brother, matthew, he was in the United States Air Force. He um has a BA in psychology with a minor in marketing, and he actually did that for over 30 years Now he is. His basic premise is that he believes the US federal government has become too powerful and it's not what the founding fathers wanted. And so he um it talks about this, the new amendment to the US constitution, and and I think that it's it's um, it's got some, some merit to it. So if you like uh what he said and you agree, then I would like you to give him a follow on Twitter to help him reach that goal of that uh million followers so you can get on that other big podcast, and if you have people who do podcasts as well, uh, try to have him on as a guest. At any rate, uh, thank you for listening and we will see you on the next episode.