Transcript
Speaker: A man spends 22 years watching our prisons and housing systems fail people and walks away convinced the fix starts with the Constitution itself. We gonna get into it.
Speaker: Let's get it.
Speaker: Welcome. First of all, welcome. This is Unsolicited Perspectives. I am your host, Bruce Anthony, here to lead the conversation in important events and topics that are shaping today's society. Join the conversation and follow us wherever you get your audio podcasts. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for our video podcasts, YouTube exclusive content, and our YouTube membership. Rate, review, like, comment, share. Share with your friends, share with your family, hell, even share with your enemies.
Speaker: on today's episode i'm sitting down with tom tyson a man who spent 22 years in the trenches of prison entry and homelessness before he decided to take on constitutional reform we're going to be talking in prison the unhoused and the constitution but that's enough of the intro let's get to the show
Speaker: I want to start somewhere personal today because this one hits close to home for me. I know people who have been to prison and have come back out of it. I've seen it. And I read about it. Seen it. What reentry actually looks like once somebody walks through that prison door and realizes the second chance everybody talks about ain't nearly as easy as it sounds. Everybody loves talking about second chances, giving somebody one.
Speaker: Whole different story. And the thing is, this ain't some issues that's happening somewhere far away from us. It's somebody's family, somebody you grew up with, somebody down the block, somebody who made a bad decision and now has to figure out how to rebuild a life when the system keeps reminding them of the worst thing that they ever did.
Speaker: Same thing for the unhoused. I've talked about on this show before because every time the subject comes up, I like to talk about it because idiots out there love to say, why don't they just get a job? Somebody literally said that to me one time.
Speaker: And it's not that simple. That answer skips over everything. The systems that don't work, the barriers people run into, the reasons somebody can be trying to get their life together and still end up with nowhere to sleep.
Speaker: These are people, not someone that you step around on your way to lunch. And that's why I wanted to have this conversation today. My guest, Tom Tyker, spent 10 years working in prison reentry in Seattle, helping people come home and try to rebuild their lives. Then he spent another 10 years working with the unhoused in Seattle. So when Tom talks about these systems, he's not talking about something that he read in in a book.
Speaker: He spent more than 20 years actually in it. He saw where these institutions worked, where they didn't, and who got left behind. And now he's taken that experience and connected it to something a whole lot bigger.
Speaker: a 28th Amendment. The basic idea is that every 40 years, we should have a structured process to take a hard look at the Constitution and ask, Is this thing still working the way it's supposed to?
Speaker: Now i know what a lot of y'all are thinking. That sounds like a good idea to some people and probably scares the hell out of a lot of other people, especially when you start talking about a convention with no limits on what could be considered.
Speaker: So we're going to get into all of that today. But for me, the heart of the conversation is still the people, the people coming home from prison, the people trying to get off the streets, and the people this country has gotten way too comfortable looking right past.
Speaker: That's where I want to start. That's where this conversation matters. So without further ado, Tom tiger As I said at the top, I'm here with Tom Teicher. We are going to be talking about reentry from prison, the unhoused, and his idea for the 28th Amendment. Tom, it is my pleasure to have you on the show. This is very interesting, especially your 28th Amendment idea. i think this is going to be a very good conversation. Another conversation for people to learn the process of amendments, because it seems like people didn't get that civics lesson that they should have gotten back in high school. but
Speaker: Thank you for coming on the show and having this conversation with me. Well, Bruce, thank you. really appreciate the opportunity. Of course. I start every interview with the very same question.
Speaker: And it is, let's go back in time. Take me to you growing up, your upbringing, your house that you grew up in, not your literal house, but the house that you grew up in, your parents, your upbringing. What shaped you to become the person that you are today?
Speaker: I actually think and that's a very useful question, at least in in my case. I was born in New York City. I grew up a few miles outside in New Rochelle, very nice town.
Speaker: I grew up on ah a dead end street. The word cul-de-sac didn't exist then. It was a wonderful way to grow up because it was very little traffic so you could play ball on the street all all the kids knew all the kids all the parents knew all the parents a really nice sense of community i walked to my local public school to go to to go to school it was and was it a very lever to beaverish kind of upbringing and i was i was really very lucky and it gave me a sense that the the world was my oyster. There was really no particular set of of limits. And that's a kind of a luxurious place to be. But it's I think there's a big difference between looking at life as how do I survive, how do I get by,
Speaker: versus seeing that the opportunities are there. And yes, I've got to do the work. I've got to take advantage of the opportunities, but the doors are open. And if I screw up at some point, there will be the people there to help me get up and proceed on my journey and do what I need to do.
Speaker: So it was a very nice way to grow up. And in the early years, would call it middle-class teen years, we moved to the so-called better side of the track. And it was more of an upper middle-class upbringing at that point.
Speaker: That's so interesting because, you know, one half of my family's from New York City in ah almost all of the boroughs. And it's so funny how you have this so many different cultures and groups and backgrounds in New York City, but at a certain period of time, and and almost still so much somewhat so segregated, and between the haves and the have-nots, and not just the races, but the haves and the have-nots, and how...
Speaker: There can be a melting pot in certain places in New York, but at the same time, you could be very excluded to just your own little section, as you say, where you're not really... There are no worries.
Speaker: It's the very Lever to Beaver type situation. was it ah When did you discover the other parts of New York City? You know, it's interesting.
Speaker: Combination of circumstances and I guess my personal interest, I got a very good look at the worlds of both the haves and the have-nots. Even when we were living in the suburbs, I still had lots of family in the city.
Speaker: My dad worked in Chelsea, which at that time was kind of a a lower income, working class, Puerto Rican neighborhood. even you know Even something as simple as taking the train from New Rochelle to Grand Central Station, there was that one stop at 125th Street Spanish Harlem. And you just by looking out the window, you got a good look at that other world. And I just found that it was it was fascinating. It was intriguing just seeing those other worlds. I also, the teenage years, ah my parents sent my brothers and me to a a prep school in the Bronx.
Speaker: And so I was in the city every day. it was ah an upper crust neighborhood in the Bronx, and most people didn't realize that there were such things. Neither did I. ever Right. But still being in the city, getting a feel for it, seeing all kinds of people was fascinating. And frankly, that provided the impetus for my own sense of purpose.
Speaker: When you do grow up in a way where you feel like you have choices, you don't have to focus simply on What do I do to get by? You have choices. You can look to make lots of money and that's fine.
Speaker: For whatever reason, I just wasn't particularly materialistic. And I was much more interested in seeing whether I could put in my two cents to help ensure that everyone has a decent chance at living a good life. And that became kind of the focus of the development of my career.
Speaker: Yeah, so that was going to lead me right into my second question. in that It seems like that curiosity of people, especially when you're you're taking that train or you're going to prep school, was really piqued.
Speaker: and And it seems like that's what points you into the career of... working with people that most people would rather not think about, whether it being those people that were incarcerated and coming out and those people that are unhoused, would you say like, okay, this curiosity definitely pushed me in that direction? And if it did, what were the steps to get to doing that type of work?
Speaker: Well, it's interesting. My first job, it was a volunteer job, And again, it was just that I was fascinated and I guess concerned as a citizen by the circumstances of folks who where life did not put them in a good place. I took a volunteer job working. i think I was, don't know, maybe it was a freshman year in high school. Maybe it was a summer job that complimented a job that I had. So a couple of times a week I would go into the city and worked for at least what was then called the city's Housing and Development Administration.
Speaker: And this particular department was the so-called receivership unit, which meant that they were responsible for overseeing apartments in the city where due to the conditions of the apartment or because the owner wasn't paying their taxes,
Speaker: that the city might have to look to take over or assume control over those units. And so I worked as a volunteer to help ah review the conditions of these units. and And that gave me my, certainly my most in-depth look at people who, ah whose conditions are really awful. And you walk into a building it acquainted me with the, the, the smell of urine and alcohol. I,
Speaker: We didn't have that experience in the suburbs. And and so it was it was kind of eye opening. You know, at the end of the day, it was just seeing that, all right, I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I can maybe contribute to giving everybody yeah a fair shake. The path to get there was not a clear cut one. The decision I made, whether it was the right one or not, was to attend law school after college.
Speaker: I'd gone to college at a small liberal arts school in Ohio. i went to law school down south. It's a good way to see America. never really crossed the Hudson River to see what else was out there. So that was a good education. Then I came back to New York to an apartment on the Upper West Side at a time when it was still affordable. And I took a couple of jobs working in the criminal and juvenile justice system.
Speaker: and And that was useful in its own way too, particularly the second job. I worked as the ombudsman, the advocate for the kids locking locked up in our juvenile jail and in the South Bronx. It was a place called Spofford Juvenile Center, doesn't exist anymore. But it was it was an interesting experience. ah The job itself was neither here nor there, but sitting down with these kids and hearing their stories was was totally fascinating. And the one big takeaway I had from that experience was the the tragedy for so many of these kids. And these kids were 13, 14, 15 years old. In New York State, ah you became an adult for criminal purposes at 16, not 18. What years was this?
Speaker: This was in the late 70s. Okay. It's a long time ago. That's why I've got all this white hair. And there was a theme I heard over and over and over again in listening to these kids, which was the mistake that the system had made was that they would start off by doing something that got them in trouble.
Speaker: And the system's response him response was insufficient. Maybe a little tap on the hand. but not enough to get their attention. And so they would go out and do stuff again and do stuff again. And then it becomes habitual. And then one day they start doing something really serious and everybody starts throwing the book at them. And at that point, it's it's a big problem. And the point simply being that the system would have done them a favor had they given them a little bit of tough love early on. Nothing disproportionate, nothing crazy,
Speaker: but just something to get their attention. And nobody had early on, and it was really, it didn't really do them any favors. So anyway, it it was an interesting experience. Give me an example.
Speaker: Give me an example of, let's say that a young man, 13 years old in the South Bronx 1977, food from the bodega. Mm-hmm.
Speaker: food from the bodega What was the punishment and what did you what did you say what would you suggest should be the punishment to kind of get their attention?
Speaker: I would say the ah the punishment was mostly ah somebody ah waving a finger at them and saying, we're putting you you know on some kind of probationary status ah with no apparent consequence at the end of that. Just don't do that again.
Speaker: The appropriate response might have been, wouldn't necessarily require a confinement. It could be some kind of community service, something that let them know that, all right, here are some people whose lives you have impacted.
Speaker: and who is wrong. And maybe you should get a close-up look at what it is that you did and think about it. And in any case, we're gonna take some of your time to make you do something and make you think about this and give you pause and the like. So something along those lines, it doesn't have to be drastic, because by the time the system does respond, then they're locked up and then they're developing new habits and then they're in a prison environment which has its own dysfunctionality to it.
Speaker: We're going to get to that. I'm curious to know your perspective as somebody who was on the front lines of doing the housing thing where you're going in and observing these houses and then later being an advocate for these these youth that are being arrested and and charged for various crimes.
Speaker: Could there have been even before a punishment, something that we could have done so that they wouldn't commit the crimes in the first place. What I'm asking is, are a lot of these crimes that these youth were being caught, was it a crime of just bad kids and committed crime? Or was it a crime because they had nothing?
Speaker: and they were trying to get something, whether that was they were hungry because there was no food at home and they're stealing food in order to eat. Is there a connection there between the environment that they grew up in, the lack of opportunity that they might have, or straight up finances, and then crime being an option?
Speaker: Right. Well, the in my view, ah there is a sort of a broader systemic failure. Kids are kids. You know, I was no better or worse than any of those kids were.
Speaker: But I had choices. I had people to encourage me when I needed encouragement, people who give me a kick in the butt as needed. grew up under very difficult circumstances. But it's in a sense, it's a much broader issue because it applies to everyone.
Speaker: in In my view, there is a an obligation that we have as a society to provide ah an economic foundation for everyone.
Speaker: And that provides both the foundation to put food on the table, roof over your head, health care, et cetera, et cetera. It provides you, theoretically, an op opportunity to earn your way.
Speaker: in this world and develop the skills that you need. We don't have that. We don't have a system. We have a lot of fragments. and And that means what we have as a so-called safety net is both ineffective and inefficient. And just it just doesn't work very well. And it even leads to the sense of possibilities. I think i think one's attitude Is so much a part of being successful in life. If you think there is a chance, if you see there is, there are doors that could be open. I see if you're going to live your life very differently than if you're saying, well, look,
Speaker: you know, there really aren't any doors open and I'm going to have to take shortcuts. Uh, we all have to be accountable for what we do at the end of the day, but there is, there is a big difference between living your life with a sense that, all right, there is stability.
Speaker: We may not be rich or anything, but there are opportunities. There is stability. I can move forward with my life as opposed to me and my family. We're just trying to, to scrape by. And if we have to take shortcuts, uh,
Speaker: so be it so i think circumstances and the way the system deals with it and i think the system them ideally should be one based on a foundation for everyone, regardless of what their economic circumstances are. I think i think targeting it towards lower-income people his is a more bureaucratic and not an ideal approach. I would prefer there be a solid foundation for everyone and and enough of a progressive tax system to pay for it.
Speaker: Going back to your work with prisoners, what did you learn about reentry that somebody who's never been near that system just doesn't get? And also, what's the part everybody assumes is the hard part?
Speaker: And what's the part that's actually hard that nobody even talks about? Well, all right, let's start. Reentry starts while they're still locked up. The transition process starts the day they get into prison. And that provides h responsibilities for both, the system has a responsibility and the inmate has a responsibility. It's not one or the other. There need to be opportunities for someone to address the issues that may have been relevant to getting in trouble.
Speaker: Some of them could be therapeutic issues, depends on what nature of the crime is. There and needs to be opportunities perhaps to develop skills so that when they come out, if If that is an issue that they can go out, get a job, be productive citizens and and all that.
Speaker: There needs to be a practical sense that is taught to people. see it' the The most important skill, from my experience, the most important skill that somebody needs to learn while they are in prison. And it's partly a function of their own mindset and possibly of what the system teaches them. Most important thing is resilience. the a lot of guys come out of prison with a plan. That's wonderful. They've got a plan, but they have forgotten the old Mike Tyson line.
Speaker: You know, everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face. yeah And they've got to realize that that's not, you know, the way life works is things very rarely go according to plan. And so what one of the most heartbreaking failures when I would see these folks on the outside and the the organization that I ran operated, we did some of our work in the prisons, working with inmates while they were still locked up.
Speaker: But we also ran an 18-bed transitional housing program. And one of the most heartbreaking things is somebody who comes out with a very positive attitude. They're really motivated. They've got a plan, but they are not positioned to deal with the bumps in the road. And they hit a bump in the road and there's ah a problem. What I used to tell guys while they were locked up is I would say, try to think about worst case scenarios. Why don't you assume that the guy who promised to pick you you up at the prison gate the day you're released doesn't show up?
Speaker: what are you going to do? Why don't you assume that the guy who promised you a job when you get released says, I'm sorry, times are tight. I can't help you out. Try to think through the scenarios that will ill enable you to say, all right, I'll come up with a plan B and a plan C, but I'm going to find a way to move forward and move forward in an effective way.
Speaker: You know, and then when they, when they get out, I think the most important thing, and this is Bruce, this is a really corny expression, but I think the most important thing is a support system. Yeah.
Speaker: And it's something we all need. We just don't necessarily think of it this way. You come out, you're going to hit bumps in the road. You need encouragement. You need the kick in the butt occasionally. And yeah, you need a plan. yeah And and you you you need to do the things to help you move move forward.
Speaker: But, you know, we don't we don't get by in life on our own. And I think having that support system, family, friends, family, people in church, whatever it is, people that you meet to, to be there with you. I think, I think makes a really big difference.
Speaker: I think the biggest mistake that people make when they see somebody who's just gotten out of prison is twofold and it's at both ends. One is they is assume once a crook, always a crook.
Speaker: That's a mistake. The other mistake they make is the more sympathetic, You know, the guy seems motivated.
Speaker: you know, it sounded like he's going to be just fine. The reality is everybody talks a good game. and my experience was i got out of the prediction days out of the prediction game very, very early.
Speaker: I'm not smart enough to figure out whether the guy is gonna stay on course or he's gonna go off course. But I think we needed to provide opportunities for them to to move forward in in various ways.
Speaker: That's so interesting that you said it starts in prison because when I'm thinking about it, what prison is like, what I've heard, because I've never been, and what you're expressing to me when they get out.
Speaker: Everything in prison is is is formulaic. Like, you know when you're going to be eating, you know when you need to be in your cell, you know when you... It's programmed, right? The only thing that you have to worry about is violence, right? So I'm assuming that when they get back out,
Speaker: That, yeah, they can pick up on dangerous situations because that hasn't changed. But what has changed is the unpredictability of just life because life is so predictable on prison. That's something I just never thought about. But yeah, if you spent...
Speaker: three, four, five, 10, 20, 25 years in prison, you've lived a certain way. it would be hard to just adjust back to the uncertainty of life. Well, I think you're right on the money. And that is why another tragedy is you often see people come out of prison And then after a while, they sabotage themselves.
Speaker: They miss the certainty of prison, the stability of prison. and Maybe there are the the physical risks, but by and large, they know the routine. They know how to be safe. There's a predictability to life. And they come out to this new world and they're...
Speaker: Sometimes, depending on how long they've been locked up, they're not even acquainted with the technology and various things and and the responsibilities that come with being out, and they will do something to sabotage themselves to find a way to get themselves locked up again. That's it a sad story.
Speaker: yeah You've also spent about 10 years working with the unhoused in Seattle. When somebody hits you with, why can't they just get a job and get off their butt?
Speaker: What do these people actually miss about the unhoused and their situations? You know, i think there are a couple of things.
Speaker: You know, first there's the... The Robin Williams line that, you know, everyone you meet is, is fighting a battle you know nothing about.
Speaker: So, yeah you know, you, you just, it's easy to draw quick conclusions. I think this is, this is a real systemic failure.
Speaker: And I put the onus much more on the system than I do on failures of the individual. People don't want to live on the street. There are very few people who want to live on the street. And I think the vast majority of people are ready and prepared to earn their way to to have the roof over their head.
Speaker: But look at the different circumstances that you're dealing with. Let's sort of divide thee the market to your household there. Okay. A lot of people who are on the street are employed. It's just that the income they make from their jobs is not sufficient to get housing.
Speaker: So that is a failure of the system to because at least in my view, if somebody's putting in a 40 hour a week, they have earned the right to have a roof over their head.
Speaker: They've done their part. right Our failure to provide housing that is affordable is a failure on the system's part. Then there are those who are unemployed, looking for work, have not found work.
Speaker: Well, To me, the failure is why aren't we providing the opportunities to secure jobs that will enable them to get the housing?
Speaker: I think that if you go back to the New Deal, the WPA and the like, the concept of government as employer of last resort, I think made sense then. I think it makes sense now.
Speaker: Again, it's about opportunity. I think we have an obligation as ah as a society. Look at the other end of the spectrum. You have people with various kinds of disabilities, physical disabilities, mental disabilities.
Speaker: I think we have an obligation for people who are unable to work to provide, depending on the circumstances, some cases it could be permanent housing, other cases it could be a temporary situation. It can involve some kind of drug or alcohol treatment that's needed to get them through a particular i a particular segment of life.
Speaker: of of life So I think there aren't a lot of people. i guess the bottom line is this, depending on people's circumstances, even people who are in a middle ground struggling with something, I think we have an obligation to provide some kind of decent shelter, some kind of decent temporary arrangement. doesn't have to be fancy, but it's something that is civil, provides a roof over their head,
Speaker: has a decency to it, something that will still provide an impetus to look for permanent housing, something more secure, something that may be more private. And and the temporary housing, one of the failures of the transition, the transitional temporary housing system is that it's got to be more more flexible. And I think there are a lot of steps being taken. Different people have different needs. For some people living in a dormitory with with with a zillion people in one room,
Speaker: they can get by and they're fine. A lot of people need more space, they need more privacy. They're concerned about their security. There are some people who need their pet. There are some people who are couples. They're just different different circumstances and we have to be able to have those different situations. There should be virtually no excuse for somebody living on the street, frankly.
Speaker: How many, this is just, this wasn't in the the questions I get. This is is just something I just thought off on on the spot. No, I've worked a little bit with the unhoused and realized there's a lot of veterans that are unhoused. Was that something that you came across in your work? And it I know that they're unhoused, but like, what what do you think would be the percentages of the unhoused that are veterans
Speaker: You know, i can't estimate a percentage of that, but oddly enough, the veterans have proven to be a an almost case study of how the system can work. okay yeah have been There have been dedicated funds the last number of years.
Speaker: toward veterans. And so actually the percentage of unhoused veterans has gone way down. oh good the the The system has actually provided housing for veterans and they certainly deserve it. and And so they've done a good job of getting veterans off the street.
Speaker: Ensuring that non-veterans have those opportunities, when you concede that it works with veterans, again, at the end of the day, it's about will rather than the way.
Speaker: You know, ultimately, You know, to the extent that the private market does not provide sufficient housing, then you need to have subsidies to provide enough affordable housing and and the like. I mean, we have a housing supply problem in this country just in general. And this is partly how it plays it out. And then there are situations, for example, where back in the eighty s They emptied out a lot of the institutions that provided support for people with mental health and other such problems, and they ended up on the street.
Speaker: Yeah. That happened here D.C. Around 2002, 2003, they just closed up those ah programs, closed up those buildings, and those people went right out to the street. You know, the the theory was good. The theory was rather than being in an institutional environment, develop these community-based settings.
Speaker: It would be more civil, it involve more support from the community, a win-win situation. The part they did right was closing down the facilities. The small detail they left out was developing the community-based facilities. yeah And so here we are.
Speaker: Yeah, poor transition. You've spent a lot of years in these systems. When did you, I'm sure it was throughout the entire process, but when did you pinpoint it and say, oh, this isn't one particular problem that causes all of this? These are structural issues ah issues in the institutions that result in people ending up in prison or ending out on the street.
Speaker: You know, i would say the issues around offenders, in a sense, was almost its own category in a way, because I think the circumstances in some way were where unique.
Speaker: But there are just a broad-based the broad-based systemic failure in terms of providing opportunities for people, whether they get in trouble or not. Just the broad-based failure of our system to provide an economic foundation, one that is as unbureaucratic as possible, but one that effectively ensures that people are able to meet their basic needs, are able to prepare for long-run opportunities and long-run needs, including healthcare. That's a foundation that, particularly in a wealthy society, should come with the territory. And again, I think the failure is is that the way the programs we have in this society have developed, whether it's food stamps or it's Medicaid or it's Section 8 housing what have you,
Speaker: It's all fragmented. Each program develops separately, each with its own eligibility rules, each each each going in its own silo. It's not a system and this is not rocket science. I'm not that smart a guy. It's just something that you can observe and say it is both inadequate and just incredibly inefficient.
Speaker: We need, even in a RIF society, we have limited resources, but if you put those resources to good use, there's a lot more that that you can achieve. One last question about the unhoused, because I find this interesting with people that I talk to that are were unhoused or currently unhoused. And some of them have been incarcerated. ah There is almost a pipeline to those people that fail, as you say, that didn't plan for the bumps in the road of being out of prison who end up unhoused. Maybe they don't get
Speaker: They don't sabotage themselves and go back. They end up unhoused. And how dangerous it is living on the street and living in prison. are Are there certain parallels to both of those situations? Because it seems like to me that even though that you're free, in essence, you're not in prison, that it's still a prison when you're when you don't have a home.
Speaker: I think it's a prison when you don't have have a home. I think, i mean, I really hadn't thought about this particular question. I think the commonality actually between the the two is that both need a sense of safety, both establish a sense of community. When a guy is locked up in prison, you know, if he's a yeah if he's a a small, thin fellow who is in physical jeopardy of a bully,
Speaker: who may take advantage of him in really unpleasant ways, he's going to find and he's going to find somebody who's going to take care of him. They'll work out whatever the arrangement is, and that's where the safety is. Well, for people who are on the street, especially if they're on the street for a while, um they develop their sense of community. you know And after a while, unless you have something really that's better to offer,
Speaker: You know, if you're going to say, look, I'm going to put you in a room with 200 people in in double deckers that are three feet apart from each other, they may be happier being out on the street with a few of their friends who support each other, take care of each other and the like. So I think that need, that mutual support need is, is to me, is sort of the commonality.
Speaker: That's pretty cool. I want to shift now. because you've been talking around the country about this 28th Amendment. Can you break it down for everybody what this idea is? Break it down like you're at a barbecue and you're talking to people. What actually changes and why every 40 years, which is what your suggestion?
Speaker: Okay. So we start from the beginning. The Constitution is the... the foundation of our democracy. We don't think about it a lot. We kind of take it as a given, but it it provides the the framework. It provides the the governing framework.
Speaker: It provides our system for electing public officials. It provides a set of rights for us as individuals that that we find precious. Even if we are unpopular people, we have those rights.
Speaker: These things are really fundamental to how we live in a democracy. When the founders wrote the constitution, this is back in 1787, that's a long time ago.
Speaker: They realized at that point, it was already an imperfect document. And they also realized that as time went on, it would require changes, not only those that they perhaps could anticipate, say around an issue issue like slavery, but around issues that they couldn't anticipate. Because over time, you would find out what is working, what is not working terms of the government, the governmental system you set up. The reality is that circumstances change, possibilities change, sometimes our values change.
Speaker: And the Constitution needs to be able to evolve, to respond, to stay with the times and and all that. And so the founders said, all right, let's put a provision in the Constitution that will allow us to change it.
Speaker: And they created Article 5. Article 5 establishes two ways of changing the Constitution. Now, you one of them and the only one that's been used, says, all right, folks in Congress have a particular idea, and if it passes with two-thirds support of the House and two-thirds support of the Senate,
Speaker: And then it gets ratified by three quarters of the states. We have ourselves an amendment. The bar is pretty high. yes And that has a lot to do with why if you take the constitution and consider the 10 amendments that constitute the bill of rights, we've only had 17 amendments beyond that in almost 240 years. That's not much.
Speaker: So you've got this one method that has created only 17 amendments. amendments but maybe the bar should be high. You want Constitution to have sense of permits. It's the other part of Article 5 where they fell short of the mark.
Speaker: They said, look, we have to have a second a second way of doing this because we can't rely solely on Congress to initiate amendments because there's no way Congress will initiate any amendments that might jeopardize their own prerogatives. Let's say,
Speaker: you know, take term limits. It's unlikely you're going to have ah an amendment that's going to start with somebody from Congress initiating congressional term limits. So they said, let's have a system that the states can initiate it That's fine.
Speaker: But what was really valuable was the methodology was to have a convention, a constitutional convention that could be initiated the by the states, by two thirds of the state saying we want a convention.
Speaker: Great, great. Here's where it fell short. the The provision has almost no detail to it.
Speaker: So let's say a bunch of states get together and say, we want to have a convention so we can address this particular issue. And they call for a convention.
Speaker: There is nothing in article five that tells you that once they start convening, whether they can address a whole bunch of other issues. And people say, that's Pandora's box. That's a you know that's a a runaway convention. It scares the hell out of us. There's nothing in the provision that tells you how delegates are selected. There are no details at all.
Speaker: So the convention option has always been too hard to handle. and And the tragedy, in my view, is that the convention option also opens up an opportunity beyond that one particular issue that the that the states may have in mind. You know, the way we live our lives is really no different than the way we should deal with the Constitution.
Speaker: We make mid-course corrections. Once in a while in life, we take a step back, do some soul searching, saying to ourselves, all right, where am I on course? What kind of changes do I need to make? Sometimes you work for a company or some other kinds of organization and they go off on a weekend retreat. Again, take a step back.
Speaker: Where are we on course? What kind changes should we make? No different than the Constitution because there are things that change in life and you do see what is working and what is not working and and what could be changed. So the idea, in my view, is to have a Constitution convention which can address as few issues or as many issues as the delegates want. The 40-year idea is simply to to sort of space it properly. You might recall that Thomas Jefferson had suggested that there'd be a convention once a generation. He said once every 19 years because he felt that no generation should impose the Constitution on the following generation.
Speaker: He's a lot smarter than I was. He was a lot smarter than I am. that I've got a little bit of a different take. I think it's got to be stretched out more for for two, three three reasons. You need time to see how well the changes that you're making play out over time. You don't necessarily want to start from scratch. You want to build on that. I imagine if a convention gets together, the very first thing we'll do say, what is working in the Constitution? What do we make sure we don't tamper with?
Speaker: The, the constitution also will be a convention will be highly disruptive. I mean, just try to imagine this. You have a process, so we can go into details on this, but you have a process where each state has to choose its delegation.
Speaker: Then you have a convention that meets for however many months to address whatever few or many issues they want to address and protect put together a particular package of changes. Then in the scheme that I'm offering, Congress gets a bite at the apple.
Speaker: They can't change it as such, but with two-thirds vote of Congress, they can make recommendations. Then it goes back to the convention, which can say, we like the changes or we're going to override them. We don't want the changes.
Speaker: Well, we want some or all of them. And by two thirds, rather than the original majority, they can switch it back or do whatever they want. And then it comes to ratification. And in my view, ratification should come from the people, not the state legislators. And so then you need a period of time where people need to become acquainted with what is in the Constitution, what changes have been made. You might recall the Federalist Papers from your high school civics. Then there's stuff that'll be published. There'll be conversations about
Speaker: you know, on TV and through social media, wherever. And then there was finally a vote of the people, majority wins. Either the people say, yes, we want this package of amendments or no, we don't. This is gonna take time and it's gonna be disrupted because you still have to run your government parallel to all of that. So for a combination of reasons, I think it should be stretched out to 40 years, but we can talk more about the details. And I particularly want to at least address the issue of how the delegates are selected. Because that's sort of the key to it all. I was just, that was literally, Tom, you're on it. You must've read my mind because that is literally the next question. Because if states are selecting the delegates and we have so much money,
Speaker: in politics now, that influence our legislation now, how can we keep that money or certain figures that are, that have a lot of money or organizations that have a lot of money from influencing the states when they choose the delegates?
Speaker: And then, and and let's, let's focus on the delegates first, because then I have another question about the people making decisions. ah making the final choice, leaving the choice for the people. But let's focus on the delegates. How do we keep money from influencing who the states select to be the delegates?
Speaker: An important question. The underlying principle is that the system has to have an integrity to it. It has to be designed in a way so that no one can put their thumb on the scale.
Speaker: As a result, for example, no one who is a current public official will be permitted to be a delegate. And it would also be designed in a way that it makes no difference which political party has the upper hand after time the convention is held.
Speaker: The timing of it will not be important. So how are the delegates selected? um Imagine that each state and DC.
Speaker: I think it's time to bring them back into the union. So the equivalent of 51 states, each one has a delegation of three people. How are those delegates selected?
Speaker: Let us for now just set aside Nebraska and DC, which have just one body legislatures. 49 of them have two body legislatures. Let's talk about the typical case.
Speaker: All right. The way this scheme would work would each house, each chamber would get to choose one delegate.
Speaker: ah So if you have a Senate, they could choose one delegate, a house or whatever they're called, they could choose one delegate. And then those two delegates would choose the third.
Speaker: So let's say, let's take a hypothetical, Bruce. Let us say you are a member of your state legislature. Congratulations. And let's say that you are concerned and you may be concerned about who's putting money in and and all the other ways things could be influenced. All right.
Speaker: And let's say you're also concerned about the political biases that are going to be involved. And let's say that you're in the minority. Let us say that you're in a state and you're in the state Senate and you have, there are 100 members of the state Senate.
Speaker: And just hypothetically, I have no idea what your political affiliation is, but let's say hypothetically you're a Democrat and you're in the minority. and Let's say there are 40 of you who are Democrats and there are 60 who are Republicans.
Speaker: Now you're going to be concerned, well, the Republicans will have their way. Well, not so fast. Because the way this operates is the bar is set very high. And that chamber will have to find somebody who will receive at least 80% approval of that chamber.
Speaker: Oh, okay. So this is even this is even more than what's needed in the Senate to pass a bill currently. Okay. All right. Right. so pre Because in the vast majority of states...
Speaker: In 35 states, in neither house, in neither chamber, do you have 80% of one party or the other. And then in another three states, you have three more states that have 80% in only one of the two chambers. So basically... just have to ask this one question. Because...
Speaker: That could change with redists with redistricting, right? With states drawing the maps to eliminate. So that that there's another issue with, oh, we we'll make sure that the next cycle will hit the 80% threshold with Republicans or Democrats because we're going to rewrite this congressional map so that it's in our favor. Right.
Speaker: Okay, so there are 13 states, only about a quarter of them, that are skewed left or skewed right. And so they will likely choose representatives who reflect the preponderance of that state's leanings. And in that sense, if it's so overwhelming, it's probably not inappropriate anyway, because that's the way a state leans.
Speaker: But as far as gerrymandering is concerned, if you look at just the last few years, it's pretty it's pretty steady and you're not even close to being able to rig the system so that so that you can get 80% or more one way or the other. So this thing is designed to to provide a safeguard against that. So the bar is set real high. So if you are in the legislature and you're one of only 40, but it's going to require 80 people ah who approve it,
Speaker: you're going to have to find somebody that makes both that makes everybody happy. That people at both ends of the spectrum can say, all right, this is somebody who is representing our chamber, who is representing our state. We are finding one person to represent our chamber.
Speaker: that person's going to be pretty pretty well respected, pretty well regarded by people across the board, whoever it is that they choose. And one side isn't going to be able to impose their will on the other.
Speaker: And so youra you're going for quality over partisanship here. And so that provides the the essence of it. And then those two members get to choose the third, which will enable the delegation to have a third member who perhaps offers a different perspective, different set of skills and the like for that three person delegation.
Speaker: What stops a state from just from saying we can't agree on the delegates? We're not going to send any delegates. Right. And you would say, well, for that state, they just wouldn't be a part of the convention. But if enough states did that, then it wouldn't matter.
Speaker: What the convention produced, you wouldn't have enough states to ratify, to even send it to Congress under your idea for them to do the little tweaks to send it back. So what safeguards would you would be needed to be put in place to say, no, a state needs to send a delegate. You have to get this done by this time in order to get the convention going.
Speaker: Well, the outline I've put together for this thing does require that they create their delegations by a certain date. And if they don't, then they've disempowered themselves.
Speaker: ah I'm not especially concerned that there'd be bunches of of the states that wouldn't provide delegates. You know, this has to be an amendment that passes. There there has to be a sense that, and in order to become an amendment, it's got to go through the current Article 5 process. And so you're going to have to have this amendment get passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, and then three-quarters of the states will And clearly it's going to reflect the support of the people in in this kind of system. And if you're going to go into all that trouble and then abstain from selecting a representative, I don't think you're doing in your job.
Speaker: And i so I'm not going to, guess, in a worst case scenario, if they're You know, if there weren't enough states, well, actually the way this thing is designed is that you couldn't run into that problem.
Speaker: The reason being that the the changes that the convention would produce would reflect a majority of votes, not majority of states.
Speaker: And so if somebody doesn't, state doesn't show up, that's their loss. You know, if at the end you, you know, you have 49 states that show up, then, you know, the 25 votes in favor of a particular amendment will get the job done. You won't need 26. 25 is the majority of of those people, of those delegations who vote.
Speaker: who vote I like to think that a state wouldn't want to be left out. And these, these i know that the compromise is kind of out of vogue these days, but I would think that these legislators would want to be left out of the process and they will be able to identify somebody who they say, you know, I don't completely agree with this guy and they don't completely agree with this guy, and but we really respect this person gal, this woman's judgment, their thoughtfulness, their experience, their wisdom.
Speaker: This will be equally representative for our state. I feel like you've already answered my question about the slippery slope of repealing amendments that are already in the press that are already in the Constitution, because ultimately, going through all these stages, the people still vote on what ah what gets passed. They're the final vote under your...
Speaker: the the people will will The people will get the the final vote. It's up or down by a majority vote. But also in that earlier process, in a del you know, again, imagine yourself in the in the legislature.
Speaker: And you and your Democratic colleagues have got to either agree on or help identify somebody new that your Republican friends can live with as well, and that will be able to collect 80 votes.
Speaker: to find a person from your state who is so well respected that they can get the support of 80% of these people. And then think, all right, where do I place my best?
Speaker: Do I think that if this person is representative of who's going to be in that convention, do I think that they're likely to come up with a better constitution?
Speaker: Or do I think they're more likely to sabotage the good things that we have in our constitution? I can't tell you how to weigh that, but I i think it's a pretty good bet. Okay. So the thing that bothers me is how can I say this delicately? Well, I'm not going to be delicate. People are dumb.
Speaker: And I'm not talking solely politicians. I'm talking about generally speaking. People are dumb. that i don't I don't remember exactly what the reading level is, the average reading level for the U.S., but I think it's seventh grade, maybe sixth grade.
Speaker: And especially with technology, so many people are... fooled by these clips, these reels, while digging deep, researching, finding out if it's true or not, they go off on these half-cocked ideas. They listen to people that they think that they should trust, and that's where they get their information. What scares me is putting the future of this country in the hands of people, especially given some of the choices that have been made just as far as elections are concerned ah within the last 10 to 15 years. How do we trust
Speaker: that the delegates, the convention, the people that will be enforcing the rules will get the information that's needed to make an informed vote when it comes time for the masses to vote and get that majority to pass or repeal or the course with the Constitution.
Speaker: So since the citizens will have, the electric will have the final vote on this through the ratification process. And, you know, it's not going to be the same as it was in the late 1700s where there are people, you know, reading the Federalist Papers and all that. There are some people who will, but you have different levels of education.
Speaker: You have different levels of of interest and you have different technologies and means to communicate. At the end of the day, there are responsibilities, responsibilities of public officials to communicate, responsibilities of the press to communicate, responsibilities of the citizens to learn about what's going on.
Speaker: to develop the analytical skills. It's partly about our educational system as well. yeah I think, you know, I think one of the, you know, that's sort of an aside. One of the ideas that applies in a number of countries that has never made any sense to me is the idea of making voting mandatory.
Speaker: I can't understand why you would want voting mandatory and force somebody to vote if they're not prepared to participate. and they haven't done any homework, and they are gullible, and if they hear something on a 20-second commercial, ah, that sounds good, I bite, and I go for that.
Speaker: So it requires responsibility on the part of the citizens and a lot of other players to make good decisions. But in a democracy, you know, ultimately, you make decisions directly or indirectly through your representatives. Here, it's kind of a combination of both, and that's the way we we we normally operate. And I think, you know, it's interesting. One of the issues, for example, that a convention could address would be issues like campaign financing.
Speaker: They could involve other things that in some way impact what the election process should be like, and if there are ways to make it more equitable.
Speaker: You know, they can even change our our political party system. the, you know, the, we have a two party system, which in a sense fosters everything being in black and white, good guys, bad guys, everything is that simple.
Speaker: Well, one of the benefits, and this is just my own bias on this, one of the benefits of having a, a, multi-party system is that there'll be there'll be opportunities to talk about things in shades of grey. You'll have to develop coalitions. It becomes a different game and the way the way people are elected may be different because they'll have to probably broaden the scope of who it is that day they want to vote for them. The delegates will decide what issues they want. That's going to be their call. And a big part of this is to trust the process, which may sound very good, but I think it's really critical.
Speaker: But getting back to your question, I think there's always risk in a democracy that people can make bad decisions. I think the best we can do is ah help prepare them and hope the people themselves are motivated. In fact, at the risk of being a little bit Pollyannish, hope that both the process of people thinking about this 28th Amendment and deciding to encourage their representatives to to vote for it. And the process of people learning about the particular proposals that come out of the convention and how that convention is organized, bringing together people who are respected on at both ends of the spectrum, might in its own way have a bit of a unifying effect. That we're all in this together, that here's a chance for a reset, maybe lower the voices a little bit,
Speaker: and try to help us move forward in a more constructive way. I don't know if that's realistic, but I you know i hope that could be ah a byproduct of this process. Yeah, you know, when i heard about this idea, you know, i I'm 50-50 on it. I see the good. i definitely see the good. i can also see how it could be dangerous, but you've kind of...
Speaker: built in a enough safeguards that I think that it it could all work out. It's definitely interesting and it's definitely something that I'm glad that you brought to the table here for us all to think about because you do make a very valid point. 17 amendments in 200 years, yeah probably not good enough. And it is extremely hard to get the current Congress to agree on passing a spending bill. So yes, it it i I see benefits and doing it this way, going back to the States and then kicking it to the people, but people need to, it it seems like what you're pitching is responsibility for all. Like everybody take a hand in this process. and And even though I think people generally are dumb, they, I think that maybe they wouldn't be dumb if they felt like,
Speaker: they had direct connection to change. So very interesting idea. I'm very happy that you that you brought it to the show for my audience to learn from. Well, Bruce, I really appreciate the opportunity to present the idea, to maybe share a little bit of my background and and perspective for what it's worth. And i just appreciate your your receptivity and interest in sharing the idea with with the viewers. If people are interested in seeing the proposal in detail, if you don't mind my just sort of pitching my website. Pitch away.
Speaker: So and in its current form, i'm I'm going to be developing a new website. But for now, i have a website called tomteicher.com. That's And there's a tab that discusses the 28th Amendment. And I encourage people to think about it carefully, talk about it with friends, give me feedback. And I hope that it...
Speaker: It enters the so-called marketplace of ideas and see where it goes. And ladies and gentlemen, that information will be in the details section of the episode as well as on the website to help you also find Tom's website.
Speaker: Tom, thank you so much for coming on the show. It was really a delight to learn about your life and to learn about your 28th Amendment idea. You, sir, have lived... have lived.
Speaker: that's that's You have lived. You have lived experiences that are worth chronicling. And so thank you so much for for coming on the show and sharing it with us. Well, thank you, Bruce. Thank you for the opportunity and the good work you're doing. It was my pleasure.
Speaker: You know, coming into this conversation, i knew we were going to talk about prison reentry. I knew we were going to talk about homelessness or the unhoused. And I knew we were going to talk about the 28th Amendment idea.
Speaker: But I didn't expect all three conversations to keep coming back to the same thing. People need a foundation. Tom talked about growing up in a house where he felt that the world was his oyster. He had opportunities. He had people around him who could encourage him, correct him, and help him get back when he fell.
Speaker: And then he spent his career meeting people who didn't have that luxury. People coming home from prison who had a plan but didn't have a plan B. People who were unhoused and working 40 hours a week but still couldn't afford a place to live. People who were told they needed to get their lives together without anybody really asking what they were supposed to build that life on. And that brought us back to something Tom said that stuck with me.
Speaker: Resilience. Because like he said, life can punch you in the face. And that's true whether you're coming home from prison, trying to get off the street, building a business, raising a family, or just trying to make it through the damn week.
Speaker: The question is, what do you have underneath you when you get knocked down? And that's where this conversation about the Constitution got real interesting to me, because I'm still 50-50 on the 28th Amendment idea. I see the argument for it. I also see why people would be nervous about opening up a document that has been the foundation of this country for damn near 240 years.
Speaker: But I think Tom made one thing very clear. This isn't just about changing words on a piece of paper. It's about whether we're willing to look at the systems we built and honestly ask, are they still doing what they're supposed to be doing?
Speaker: And that's a question we should be able to ask without immediately turning it into a Democrats versus Republicans, a left versus right, a conservative versus liberal, or this side versus that side. Because if you can't even ask whether something is working, how the hell are you even supposed to fix it?
Speaker: And maybe that's a bigger takeaway from this entire conversation. Whether you agree with Tom's 28th Amendment idea or not, he puts something on the table that I think all of us need to think about. What do we owe each other?
Speaker: Not just what does this government owe us, not just what does an individual owe themselves, but what do we owe each other as citizens? Because if somebody comes home from prison and we tell them they need to do better, but we make it damn near impossible for them to rebuild,
Speaker: what exactly are we asking for? If somebody is working but still can't afford a roof over their head, are we really going to reduce that person's entire situation to get a job?
Speaker: And if we're going to hand the next generation a constitution, a government, and a country, shouldn't we at least be willing to periodically ask whether we're handing them something that actually works for the world they're living in?
Speaker: Look, I don't have the answer to all of that. And honestly, i don't think this show needs to. Sometimes the point of a conversation isn't to tell you what to think. It's to give you something worth thinking about.
Speaker: And Tom definitely did that today. So I want to thank Tom for coming on, for sharing his experiences, and for putting his idea into the marketplace of ideas where people can challenge it, question it, support it, or reject it.
Speaker: And I want you to do the same thing. Don't just listen to this conversation and move on. Think about it. Talk about it. And if you disagree, tell me why. Because that's how we're supposed to be doing all of this. We don't have to agree on everything.
Speaker: yeah But we do have to have a conversation. But here's the uncomfortable part people don't want to talk about. A system doesn't become good simply because we've had it for a long time.
Speaker: Sometimes you have to stop, take a look at what you've built freedom and ask whether it's still serving the people it's supposed to serve. freedom over That's what we talked about today.
Speaker: And that's always worth thinking about. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for listening. I want to thank you for watching. And until next time, as always,
Speaker: I'll holler. Woo. That was a hell of a show. Thank you for rocking with us here on Unsolicited Perspectives with Bruce Anthony. Now, before you go, don't forget to follow, subscribe, like, comment, and share our podcast wherever you're listening or watching it to it. Pass it along to your friends. If you enjoy it, that means the people that you rock will will enjoy it also. So share the wealth, share the knowledge, share the noise.
Speaker: And for all those people that say, well, I don't have a YouTube. If you have a Gmail account, you have a YouTube. Subscribe to our YouTube channel where you can actually watch our video podcast and YouTube exclusive content.
Speaker: But the real party is on our Patreon page. After Hours Uncensored and Talking Straight-ish. After Hours Uncensored is another show with my sister. And once again, the key word there is uncensored. Those who exclusively on our Patreon page, jump onto our website at unsolicitedperspective.com. for all things us That's where you can get all of our audio, video, our blogs, and even buy our merch. And if you really feel generous and want to help us out, you can donate on our donations page.
Speaker: Donations go strictly to improving our software and hardware so we can keep giving you guys good content that you can clearly listened to and that you can clearly see. So any donation would be appreciated. Most importantly, I want to say thank you.
Speaker: Thank you. Thank you for listening and watching and supporting us. And I'll catch you next time. Audi 5000. Peace.
