Computer guy tries to hack the US Constitution with the American Nations

AIUI, Federal authority over relations with the Indian tribes comes from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”. (The idea that the Founding Fathers were concerned about defending those tribes’ “culture, identity, and rights” is very sweet; actually, King George III tried to defend Indians’ rights by not letting settlers expand further into their territory.) The term “domestic nations” came about to describe the tribes’ twilight-zone status of not exactly independent sovereign states and not exactly subject to the laws of the states in which their reservations existed either.

Tevis’s theory is that a bunch of people who are (a) not indigenous Americans, (b) not related to each other, and (c) not possessing anything resembling the semi-sovereign territories that Indian tribes used to have... that these people can get together, declare themselves to be a “domestic nation”, and have the same legal status of Indian tribes. I can’t see how one could construe the Constitution to get away with this. More importantly, I can’t see how state governments would stand for a law giving people such an easy escape hatch away from their own jurisdiction.

I truly admire his dedication to creating something people can identify with and working towards a higher cause of true nationhood, but a major contributing cause to the disarray of American politics is the polarization of the citizenry. We're too quick to take sides, regardless of issues and will gladly "drink the kool-aid" of whatever side parallels the most with what we believe is good, versus what's intrinsically right.

This is manifested even in the examples he presented; being an online entity, who's to say that foul play wont occur? What is the system for checks and balances when poisoning the wells to gain followers? Look at Digg and Reddit:

Ostensibly, both sites serve the same purpose, and on a given day you'll very likely find links to the exact same controversial article. It's also likely you'll hear two completely different sides of the issue-one pro, one against, one conservative, one progressive, one rational, one emotional.

The American Nations isn't going to address anything, further segmenting people into groups only reinforces the idea that you need to be with people who agree with you, and rally against those who don't. It's giving the middle finger to compromise and collaboration among people with opposing viewpoints, we don't need further segmentation of ideologies, we really don't.

And I get that he's wanting a microcosm of progressive individuals who want to address major issues as they are, but creating a group within a group, that's already divided and indecisive about how policies shape their day to day lives isn't the answer. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

If you want to FIX America, start by teaching people to think for themselves and dislodge themselves from the meme that everything in the political arena has to be constructed under an "us versus them" mentality, and to not base their moral compasses on sound-bites and blogger pundits. Then you need to teach them how beneficial and enjoyable it can be to actually learn what the guy on the other side of the table has to say.

Stop playing sides. It's destroying us as a people.

This reminds me of the Millet system used under the Ottoman empire. The central government had very little direct involvement in what we would today call "personal law" or "social policy"; instead, these were organized into separate communities along religious lines. Muslims, Jews, and various Christian denominations each had their own sets of institutions.

A more modern example is Belgium, which has a kind of double federalism, where regional governments for Flanders and Wallonia have territorial jurisdiction, and community governments for the French-, Flemish-, and German-speaking populations have separate "social" jurisdiction.

In these cases, the social jurisdiction was determined by religious or linguistic affiliation, with only a handful of communities and very limited mobility among them. It would be very interesting to see such a system organized on a much more pluralistic and dynamic basis, in which people could charter their own communities and change their affiliations freely.

Reminds me of the "phyles" in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Figuring out how the social contract can reasonably diverge among people residing in the same physical and economic space seems like a hard problem. It isn't obvious that health care qualifies.

His "Public Healthcare Nation" is likely to be hit with an adverse selection problem- unless you have to pass a physical to be admitted.

The US Constitution is known to have failed. On several levels.

I think I should say right away an unpleasant fact which is barely if ever mentioned in American school books - the founders were not interested in founding a democracy. -- It's a nine ring circus and you'll never be bored, AC, Letter from America

http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/10...

This is actually kind of brilliant. It's very similar to parliamentary voting systems in top down democracies ( as seen in Europe tm ). Except it's US constitution compatible. Clever hack.

I tentatively like it. Will require more research.

Seems like the same kind of thinking that says e.g. I don't have to pay my income tax.

The law does not lend itself to "hacking." It just doesn't work like that.

I imagine more information is going to be made available at http://seantevis.com/, but its an interesting idea.

Purely illegal and unconstitutional. I admire the spirit, but this is the sort of thing that wouldn't make it past a District Court judge.

Can someone point me to the explanation of how this will do all the things he promises? What will be the difference between the nations, etc?