Judicial Safeguard & Deliberative Integrity Amendment
Drafted by Killian Yates — March 29, 2025
Why This Amendment Matters
Time and time again, we’ve watched rushed bills become law without the public—or even lawmakers—understanding what was in them. From the 2001 PATRIOT Act, passed just 45 days after 9/11, to the 2020 CARES Act, rushed through during COVID panic, legislation has become a weapon of urgency rather than a tool of liberty. The Founders never intended for our legal system to operate like a pressure cooker.
The Judicial Safeguard and Deliberative Integrity Amendment creates a check not only on unconstitutional content but also on unconstitutional procedure. It ensures that key stakeholders—state-level executives, sheriffs, and justices—can trigger a formal review *before* potentially destructive laws are enforced. This is an antidote to blind trust and a reset button on manipulated consensus.
When This Could Have Made a Difference
- Patriot Act (2001): Rammed through with little public scrutiny, leading to decades of unchecked surveillance and FISA overreach. This amendment would’ve halted it for judicial review.
- Affordable Care Act (2010): Famously passed before it was fully read. The amendment would’ve demanded proof of public deliberation before it took effect.
- Emergency COVID Orders (2020): Many were legally questionable but enforced under duress. This framework would’ve inserted necessary judicial restraint.
- 2023 RESTRICT Act: Marketed as a TikTok ban but written so broadly it endangered VPN users and online privacy. The deceptive title alone would’ve warranted a pause under this proposal.
We don’t just need better laws. We need better *processes* to keep the people in charge and the Constitution intact. This amendment re-centers governance on deliberation, not deception—and puts the brakes on tyranny dressed up as emergency response.
Comments
Post a Comment