Alan Colquhoun

Those swans had 5 signets about two months ago, then down to two last week; now there's only one left

Nature, red in tooth and claw...

Juvenile looking heron in Blackford Pond just now...

The Broken Will - Pathological Volition Why “Alcoholism” Is a Misnomer; and What Addiction Reveals About the Fragility of Human Agency...

open.substack.com/pub/alancolq...

In the Shadow of the Cure Mind, Meaning, and the Limits of Medicine...

open.substack.com/pub/alancolq...

Santa judges every child on Earth yet is answerable to no one - essentially a tubby, jolly moral dictator (and part time cat burglar) in a red tracksuit

In this essay I will...

Sesame Street claims to teach literacy, yet one resident lives in a bin and another counts for fun all day

This isn’t education; it’s a taxpayer funded social experiment to see how many puppets it takes to raise a child

In this essay I will...

Wile E. Coyote orders from Acme despite a 0% success rate, implying he’s less predator and more corporate shareholder

The Road Runner is irrelevant

The real chase is quarterly growth

In this essay I will...

I used ChatGPT-5 to help develop this proposed constitutional amendment by refining my ideas into a coherent, legally sound, and ethically robust framework, ensuring the solution addresses the democratic risks posed by pathological narcissists in public office...

5. Outcome: confirm (removal) / vacate (reinstate) / modify (limited powers).

Enforcement flow (automatic, no discretion)

1. Trigger event (jury conviction for OACO / final contempt / CST finding) →

2. ODI files Trigger Notice (ministerial) →

3. Immediate suspension; VP becomes Acting (90 days) →

4. CST 14-day review; SCOTUS 7-day final review →

3. Proportionality:

If remedies are temporary, reviewable, and triggered only by adjudicated facts, they are proportionate.

DFSSA uses suspensions/removals keyed to adjudications with fast review.

Therefore DFSSA is proportionate.

2. Legitimacy:

Laws that condition office on conduct that predictably subverts democracy are compatible with liberal democracy (militant democracy precedents).

DFSSA conditions office on adjudicated subversion, not beliefs.

Therefore DFSSA is democratically legitimate.

Minimal formal logic (micro-syllogisms)

1. Necessity:

If existing mechanisms (impeachment/25th/Section 3) are discretionary or non-uniform, then high-risk actors can capture or paralyse them.

They are discretionary/non-uniform.

Therefore a self-executing, uniform mechanism is necessary.

“Separation of powers.” — The People, via amendment, may assign adjudicatory tasks to a CST and condition office on fidelity; SCOTUS retains ultimate review on a rocket docket.

“First Amendment.” — It regulates official acts and oaths, not beliefs; false official statements about elections carry institutional consequences, not viewpoint penalties.

“Weaponisable.” — High thresholds (jury convictions; multi-judge supermajorities), strict timelines, public reasoning, and Supreme Court review blunt abuse.

“It’s criminal law by other means.” — No: it governs eligibility and temporary devolution, not imprisonment or fines. Different constitutional box.

Anticipated objections & replies (tight)

“This adds qualifications!” — Correct; that’s why it’s an amendment (Thornton prevents doing it by statute).

Comparative proof of concept:

Germany’s wehrhafte/militant democracy empowers neutral institutions to block actors who would dismantle democracy.

Brazil’s Clean Record (Ficha Limpa) bars tainted candidates via clear, automatic criteria.

Self-executing automaticity: once a qualifying event occurs, ministers must act; discretion is narrowed to factual verification, not political preference. (Contrast the indeterminacy of the current 25th.)

Due process: every adverse step rides on adjudicated facts (jury verdicts, multi-judge findings) with fast, guaranteed review.

Democratic legitimacy: combines courts, Congress, states, and citizen sortition—minimising single-party capture.

Viewpoint-neutral: it targets methods (subversion, coercion, contempt for law), not opinions.

Due process: every adverse step rides on adjudicated facts (jury verdicts, multi-judge findings) with fast, guaranteed review.

Why this is ethically and constitutionally sound

No psychiatry in politics. The scheme is behaviour-based, not diagnosis-based—avoids stigma, the Goldwater problem, and ADA issues.

4. Ballot Access: state officers must verify DoCO and disclosures before printing ballots; CST resolves disputes on a 7-day clock.

5. Expedited Review Rules: fixed briefs, page limits, mandatory public hearings; decisions published.

3. Tripwire Registry: when a qualifying judgment, conviction, or contempt is docketed, ODI must file a one-page Trigger Notice; suspension/removal then flows automatically per Section 3 unless CST stays it within 72 hours on clear and convincing evidence of error.

2. ODI: independent, multi-key appointment (one member by President, one by House majority, one by House minority, one by Senate majority, one by Senate minority, four by sortition from a vetted citizen pool); protected budget (CBO-style) and removal only for cause by a supermajority of CST.

Implementing Statute (high level)

1. Define OACOs (cross-reference Title 18 ch. 115; include obstruction of official proceedings in election certification, violent interference with electoral administration, and coercive misuse of DOJ).

Section 9 — Transition & Severability.

Congress shall pass conforming legislation within 180 days. Failure to legislate does not delay Sections 1–3 and 7, which are self-executing. Any invalid clause is severable.

Section 8 — Enforcement and Standing.

The Office of Democratic Integrity (ODI) (see enabling statute) must file when statutory triggers occur. Voters and states have concurrent standing.

Prevailing petitioners receive fees; officials who refuse a ministerial enforcement duty are removable by writ.

Section 7 — Uniform Section 3 (Insurrection) Process.

Any elector, party, or election official may petition CST for Section 3 disqualification. If granted, the candidate is removed from all federal ballots; state officials shall enforce.

This Section supplies the federal mechanism SCOTUS demanded.