he trial and execution of Socrates in Athens in 399 B.C.E. puzzles historians.

Why, in a society enjoying more freedom and democracy than any the world had ever seen, would a seventy-year-old philosopher be put to death for what he was teaching? The puzzle is all the greater because Socrates had taught--without molestation--all of his adult life. What could Socrates have said or done than prompted a jury of 500 Athenians to send him to his death just a few years before he would have died naturally? Finding an answer to the mystery of the trial of Socrates is complicated by the fact that the two surviving accounts of the defense (or apology) of Socrates both come from disciples of his, Platoand Xenophon. Historians suspect that Plato and Xenophon, intent on showing their master in a favorable light, failed to present in their accounts the most damning evidence against Socrates. What appears almost certain is that the decisions to prosecute and ultimately convict Socrates had a lot to do with the turbulent history of Athens in the several years preceding his trial. An examination of that history may not provide final answers, but it does provide important clues. BACKGROUND Socrates, the son of a sculptor (or stonecutter) and a midwife, was a young boy when the rise to power of Pericles brought on the dawning of the "Golden Age of Greece." As a young man, Socrates saw a fundamental power shift, as Pericles--perhaps history's first liberal politician--acted on his belief that the masses, and not just propertyowning aristocrats, deserved liberty. Pericles created the people's courts and used the public treasury to promote the arts. He pushed ahead with an unprecedented building program designed not only to demonstrate the glory that was Greece, but also to ensure full employment and provide opportunities for wealth creation among the unpropertied class. The rebuilding of the Acropolis and the construction of the Parthenon were the two best known of Pericles' many ambitious building projects. Growing to adulthood in this bastion of liberalism and democracy, Socrates somehow developed a set of values and beliefs that would put

him at odds with most of his fellow Athenians. Socrates was not a democrat or an egalitarian. To him, the people should not be selfgoverning; they were like a herd of sheep that needed the direction of a wise shepherd. He denied that citizens had basic virtue necessary to nurture a good society, instead equating virtue with a knowledge unattainable by ordinary people. Striking at the heart of Athenian democracy, he contemptuously criticized the right of every citizen to speak in the Athenian assembly. Writing in the third-century C.E. in his The Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laertiusreported that Socrates "discussed moral questions in the workshops and the marketplace." Often his unpopular views, expressed disdainfully and with an air of condescension, provoked his listeners to anger. Laertius wrote that "men set upon him with their fists or tore his hair out," but that Socrates "bore all this ill-usage patiently." We get one contemporary view of Socrates from playwright Aristophanes. In his play Clouds, first produced in 423 B.C.E., Aristophanes presents Socrates as an eccentric and comic headmaster of a "thinkery" (or "thoughtery"). He is portrayed "stalking the streets" of Athens barefoot, "rolling his eyes" at remarks he found unintelligent, and "gazing up" at the clouds. Socrates at the time ofClouds must have been perceived more as a harmless town character than as a serious threat to Athenian values and democracy. Socrates himself, apparently, took no offense at his portrayal inClouds. Plutarch, in his Moralia, quoted Socrates as saying, "When they break a jest upon me in the theatre, I feel as if I were at a big party of good friends." Plato, in his Symposium, describes Socrates and Aristophanes engaged in friendly conversation. Other plays of the time offer additional clues as to the reputation of Socrates in Athens. Comic poet Eupolis has one of his characters say: "Yes, and I loathe that poverty-stricken windbag Socrates who contemplates everything in the world but does not know where his next meal is coming from." Birds, a play of Aristophanes written six years after his Clouds, contains a revealing reference. Aristophanes labels a gang of pro-Sparta aristocratic youths as "Socratified." Sparta--the model of a closed society--and Athens were enemies: the

remark suggests Socrates' teaching may have started to be seen as subversive by 417 B.C.E. The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410 and another slightly longer period in 404-403. The prime movers in both of the antidemocratic movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades and Critias. Athenians undoubtedly considered the teachings of Socrates-especially his expressions of disdain for the established constitution-partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering. Alcibiades, perhaps Socrates' favorite Athenian politician, masterminded the first overthrow. (Alcibiades had other strikes against him: four years earlier, Alcibiades had fled to Sparta to avoid facing trial for mutilating religious pillars--statues of Hermes--and while in Sparta had proposed to that state's leaders that he help them defeat Athens.) Critias, first among an oligarchy known as the "Thirty Tyrants," led the second bloody revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in 404. The revolt sent many of Athen's leading democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the driving force behind the prosecution of Socrates) into exile, where they organized a resistance movement. Critias, without question, was the more frightening of the two former pupils of Socrates. I.F. Stone, in his The Trial of Socrates, describes Critias (a cousin of Plato's) as "the first Robespierre," a cruel and inhumane man "determined to remake the city to his own antidemocratic mold whatever the human cost." The oligarchy confiscated the estates of Athenian aristocrats, banished 5,000 women, children, and slaves, and summarily executed about 1,500 of Athen's most prominent democrats. One incident involving Socrates and the Thirty Tyrants would later become an issue at his trial. Although the Thirty normally used their own gang of thugs for such duties, the oligarchy asked Socrates to arrest Leon of Salamis so that he might be executed and his assets appropriated. Socrates refused to do so. Socrates would point to his resistance to the order as evidence of his good conduct. On the other hand, Socrates neither protested the decision nor took steps to warn Leon of Salamis of the order for his arrest--he just went home. While

good citizens of Athens were being liquidated right and left, Socrates-so far as we know--did or said nothing to stop the violence. The horrors brought on by the Thirty Tyrants caused Athenians to look at Socrates in a new light. His teachings no longer seemed so harmless. He was no longer a lovable town eccentric. Socrates--and his icy logic--came to be seen as a dangerous and corrupting influence, a breeder of tyrants and enemy of the common man. THE TRIAL A general amnesty issued in 403 meant that Socrates could not be prosecuted for any of his actions during or before the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. He could only be charged for his actions during the four years preceding his trial in 399 B.C.E. It appears that Socrates, unchastened by the antidemocratic revolts and their aftermaths, resumed his teachings and once again began attracting a similar band of youthful followers. The final straw may well have been an another antidemocratic uprising--this one unsuccessful--in 401. Athens finally had enough of "Socratified" youth. In Athens, criminal proceedings could be initiated by any citizen. In the case of Socrates, the proceedings began when Meletus, a poet, delivered an oral summons to Socrates in the presence of witnesses. The summons required Socrates to appear before the legal magistrate, or King Archon, in a colonnaded building in central Athens called the Royal Stoa to answer charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. The Archon determined--after listening to Socrates andMeletus (and perhaps the other two accusers, Anytus and Lycon)-that the lawsuit was permissible under Athenian law, set a date for the "preliminary hearing" (anakrisis), and posted a public notice at the Royal Stoa. The preliminary hearing before the magistrate at the Royal Stoa began with the reading of the written charge by Meletus. Socrates answered the charge. The magistrate questioned both Meletus and Socrates, then gave both the accuser and defendant an opportunity to question each other. Having found merit in the accusation against Socrates, the magistrate drew up formal charges. The document containing the charges against Socrates survived until at least the

second century C.E. Diogenes Laertius reports the charges as recorded in the now-lost document: This indictment and affidavit is sworn by Meletus, the son of Meletus of Pitthos, against Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus of Alopece: Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, and of introducing new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded is death. The trial of Socrates took place over a nine-to-ten hour period in the People's Court, located in the agora, the civic center of Athens. The jury consisted of 500 male citizens over the age of thirty, chosen by lot. Most of the jurors were probably farmers. The jurors sat on wooden benches separated from the large crowd of spectators--including a twentyseven-year-old pupil of Socrates named Plato--by some sort of barrier or railing. Guilt Phase of Trial The trial began in the morning with the reading of the formal charges against Socrates by a herald. The prosecution presented its case first. The three accusers, Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, had a total of three hours, measured by a waterclock, to present from an elevated stage their argument for guilt. No record of the prosecution's argument against Socrates survives. Easily the best known and most influential of the three accusers, Anytus, is widely believed to have been the driving force behind the prosecution of Socrates. Plato's Meno offers a possible clues as to the animosity between Anytus, a politician coming from a family of tanners, and Socrates. In the Meno, Plato reports that Socrates' argument that the great statesmen of Athenian history have nothing to offer in terms of an understanding of virtue enrages Anytus. Plato quotes Anytus as warning Socrates: "Socrates, I think that you are too ready to speak evil of men: and, if you will take my advice, I would recommend you to be careful." Anytus had an additional personal gripe concerning the relationship Socrates had with his son. Plato quotes Socrates as saying, "I had a brief association with the son of Anytus, and I found him not lacking in spirit." It is not known whether the relationship included sex, but Socrates--as were many men of the time in Athens--was bisexual and slept with some of his

younger students. Anytus almost certainly disapproved of his son's relationship with Socrates. Adding to the displeasure of Anytus must have been the advice Socrates gave to his son. According to Xenophon, Socrates urged Anytus's son not to "continue in the servile occupation [tanning hides] that his father has provided for him." Without a "worthy adviser," Socrates predicted, he would "fall into some disgraceful propensity and will surely go far in the career of vice." It is a matter of dispute among historians whether the accusers focused more attention on the alleged religious crimes, or the alleged political crimes, of Socrates. I. F. Stone attaches far more significance to the political crimes, while other historians such as James A. Colaiaco, author ofSocrates Against Athens, give more weight to the charge of impiety. I. F. Stone argues that "Athenians were accustomed to hearing the gods treated disrespectfully in both the comic and tragic theatre." He points out that Aristophanes, in his Clouds, had a character speculating that rain was Zeus urinating through a sieve, mistaking it for a chamberpot--and that no one ever bothered to charge Aristophanes with impiety. Stone concludes: "One could in the same city and in the same century worship Zeus as a promiscuous old rake, henpecked and cuckolded by Juno or as Justice deified. It was the political, not the philosophical or theological, views of Socrates which finally got him into trouble." Important support for Stone's conclusion comes from the earliest surviving reference to the trial of Socrates that does not come from one of his disciples. In 345 B.C.E., the famous orator Aechinestold a jury: "Men of Athens, you executed Socrates, the sophist, because he was clearly responsible for the education of Critias, one of the thirty anti-democratic leaders." James Colaiaco's conclusion that impiety received more prosecutorial attention than did political sins rests on Plato's Apology. Colaiaco sees Plato's famous account of the defense of Socrates as being-although far from a verbatim transcription of the words of Socrates-fairly representative of the major points of his defense. He notes that Plato wrote the Apology within a few years of the trial and must have

expected many of his readers to have firsthand knowledge of the trial. Why, Colaiaco asks, would have Plato misrepresented the arguments of Socrates, or hid key elements of the prosecution's case, when his actions in doing so could so easily be exposed? Since the Apologyseems to give great weight to the charge of impiety--and relatively little weight to the association of Socrates with the Thirty Tyrants--Colaiaco assumes this must have been a fair reflection of the trial. At the same time, Colaiaco recognizes that because of the association of Socrates with Critias "the prosecution could expect any Athenian jury to harbor hostile feelings toward the city's gadfly." Piety had, for Athenians, a broad meaning. It included not just respect for the gods, but also for the dead and ancestors. The impious individual was seen as a contaminant who, if not controlled or punished, might bring upon the city the wrath of the gods--Athena, Zeus, or Apollo--in the form of plague or sterility. The ritualistic religion of Athens included no scripture, church, or priesthood. Rather, it required--in addition to belief in the gods-- observance of rites, prayers, and the offering of sacrifices. Any number of words and actions of Socrates may have contributed to his impiety charge. Preoccupied with his moral instruction, he probably failed to attend important religious festivals. He may have stirred additional resentment by offering arguments against the collective, ritualistic view of religion shared by most Athenians or by contending that gods could not, as Athenians believed, behave immorally or whimsically. Xenophon indicates that the impiety charge stemmed primarily from the contention of Socrates that he received divine communications (a "voice" or a "sign") directing him to avoid politics and concentrate on his philosophic mission. A vague charge such as impiety invited jurors to project their many and varied grievances against Socrates. Dozens of accounts of the three-hour speech (apologia) by Socrates in his defense existed at one time. Only Plato's and Xenophon's accounts survive. The two accounts agree on a key point. Socrates gave a defiant--decidedly unapologetic--speech. He seemed to invite condemnation and death.

Plato's apology describes Socrates questioning his accuser, Meletus, about the impiety charge. Meletus accuses Socrates of believing the sun and moon not to be gods, but merely masses of stone. Socrates responds not by specifically denying the charge of atheism, but by attacking Meletus for inconsistency: the charge against him accused him of believing in other gods, not in believing in no gods. If Plato's account is accurate, Socrates could have been seen by jurors offering a smokescreen rather than a refutation of the charge of impiety. Plato's Socrates provocatively tells his jury that he is a hero. He reminds them of his exemplary service as a hoplite in three battles. More importantly, he contends, he has battled for decades to save the souls of Athenians--pointing them in the direction of an examined, ethical life. He reportedly says to his jurors if his teaching about the nature of virtue "corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person." He tells the jury, according to Plato, he would rather be put to death than give up his soul-saving: "Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy." If Plato's account is accurate, the jury knew that the only way to stop Socrates from lecturing about the moral weaknesses of Athenians was to kill him. If I. F. Stone is right, the most damaging accusation against Socrates concerned his association with Critias, the cruel leader of the Thirty Tyrants. Socrates, in Plato's account, points to his refusal to comply with the Tyrants' order that he bring in Leon of Salamis for summary execution. He argues this act of disobedience--which might have led to his own execution, had not the Tyrants fallen from power-demonstrates his service as a good citizen of Athens. Stone notes, however, that a good citizen might have done more than simply go home to bed--he might have warned Leon of Salamis. In Stone's critical view, the central fact remained that in the city's darkest hour, Socrates "never shed a tear for Athens." As for the charge that his moral instruction provided intellectual cover for the anti-democratic revolt of Critias and his cohorts, Socrates denies responsibility. He argues that he never presumed to be a teacher, just a figure who roamed Athens answering the questions that were put to him. He points to his pupils in the crowd and observes that none of them accused him. Moreover, Socrates suggests to the jury, if Critias really

understood his words, he never would have gone on the bloody rampage that he did in 404-403. Hannah Arendt notes that Critias apparently concluded, from the message of Socrates that piety cannot be defined, that it is permissible to be impious--"pretty much the opposite of what Socrates had hoped to achieve by talking about piety." What is strikingly absent from the defense of Socrates, if Plato's and Xenophon's accounts are to be believed, is the plea for mercy typically made to Athenian juries. It was common practice to appeal to the sympathies of jurors by introducing wives and children. Socrates, however, did no more than remind the jury that he had a family. Neither his wife Xanthippe nor any of his three sons made a personal appearance. On the contrary, Socrates--according to Plato--contends that the unmanly and pathetic practice of pleading for clemency disgraces the justice system of Athens. When the three-hour defense of Socrates came to an end, the court herald asked the jurors to render their decision by putting their ballot disks in one of two marked urns, one for guilty votes and one for votes for acquittal. With no judge to offer them instructions as to how to interpret the charges or the law, each juror struggled for himself to come to an understanding of the case and the guilt or innocence of Socrates. When the ballots were counted, 280 jurors had voted to find Socrates guilty, 220 jurors for acquittal. Penalty Phase of Trial After the conviction of Socrates by a relatively close vote, the trial entered its penalty phase. Each side, the accusers and the defendant, was given an opportunity to propose a punishment. After listening to arguments, the jurors would choose which of the two proposed punishments to adopt. The accusers of Socrates proposed the punishment of death. In proposing death, the accusers might well have expected to counter with a proposal for exile--a punishment that probably would have satisfied both them and the jury. Instead, Socrates audaciously proposes to the jury that he be rewarded, not punished. According to Plato, Socrates asks the jury for free meals in the Prytaneum, a public

dining hall in the center of Athens. Socrates must have known that his proposed "punishment" would infuriate the jury. I. F. Stone noted that "Socrates acts more like a picador trying to enrage a bull than a defendant trying to mollify a jury." Why, then, propose a punishment guaranteed to be rejected? The only answer, Stone and others conclude, is that Socrates was ready to die. To comply with the demand that a genuine punishment be proposed, Socrates reluctantly suggested a fine of one mina of silver--about onefifth of his modest net worth, according to Xenophon. Plato and other supporters of Socrates upped the offer to thirty minae by agreeing to come up with silver of their own. Most jurors likely believed even the heftier fine to be far too slight of a punishment for the unrepentant defendant. In the final vote, a larger majority of jurors favored a punishment of death than voted in the first instance for conviction. According to Diogenes Laertius, 360 jurors voted for death, 140 for the fine. Under Athenian law, execution was accomplished by drinking a cup of poisoned hemlock. In Plato's Apology, the trial concludes with Socrates offering a few memorable words as court officials finished their necessary work. He tells the crowd that his conviction resulted from his unwillingness to "address you as you would have liked me to do." He predicts that history will come to see his conviction as "shameful for Athens," though he professes to have no ill will for the jurors who convict him. Finally, as he is being led off to jail, Socrates utters the memorable line: "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die, and you to live. Which to the better fate is known only to God." It is likely that this last burst of eloquence comes from Plato, not Socrates. There are no records suggesting that Athenian practice allowed defendants to speak after sentencing. Socrates spent his final hours in a cell in the Athens jail. The ruins of the jail remain today. The hemlock that ended his life did not do so quickly or painlessly, but rather by producing a gradual paralysis of the central nervous system.

Most scholars see the conviction and execution of Socrates as a deliberate choice made by the famous philosopher himself. If the accounts of Plato and Xenophon are reasonably accurate, Socrates sought not to persuade jurors, but rather to lecture and provoke them. The trial of Socrates, the most interesting suicide the world has ever seen, produced the first martyr for free speech. As I. F. Stone observed, just as Jesus needed the cross to fulfill his mission, Socrates needed his hemlock to fulfill his. We need world organization that is democratic. The United Nations was founded as an organization in 1945, succeeding and taking over many of the functions of the defunct League of Nations. Yet the United Nations was the name of the allies that won World War II, and the five powers (Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States) made themselves the only permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, each with veto power. Although the United Nationshas helped to manage many global problems, from its inception it was not democratic and did not represent the people of the world but rather the governments of the nations. In the General Assembly and the Security Council, the officials representing each country were delegated by the national governments; they were not elected by the people and have had little political power. Recently certain multi-lateral organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been increasing their power and influence over world affairs and pressuring nations to adopt policies and change their laws for the sake of the capitalist interests that dominate these organizations. Unfortunately as a result this domination by financial interests has increased the gap between the rich and the poor in the world to epidemic proportions with millions of people suffering and dying of malnutrition and various diseases. These inequalities are increasing the conflicts in the world so that many people are killed in wars within and between nations. Thus the efforts of the United Nations to fulfill its objective "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" are failing to accomplish the purpose for which the organization came into existence. With the pressures of diminishing oil and fresh water resources, I believe that it is critical that we develop a democratic form of world organization that can oversee universal disarmament, alleviate poverty, maintain security and health for all, protect human rights, and promote education. The current leaders of powerful nations, especially the US, are making the world situation worse by their wars and attempts to dominate. The time has come for the

people of the world to join together and rise up to put an end to these cruel wars and make sure that the rights of all are protected as life is nurtured and made better. Some have feared that a world government would become too powerful and take away people's freedoms because the empires that have risen in world history by military power have been oppressive. Yet every attempt to dominate by means of force has brought a reaction from other people who have eventually overthrown these warlike empires. Now the United States and its capitalist allies are attempting to dominate the world by their military power, using the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to make the world a police state controlled by their power and influence. In my opinion as a philosopher the attempt to make the world "free" or "democratic" by force of arms is hypocritical and doomed to failure. The people of the United States have the responsibility to reverse these fascist tendencies that have led to the invasion and toppling of governments in other countries. The people of the world can also organize to overcome this latest attempt at militaristic imperialism. No nation or small group of nations has the right to dominate the world. Thus I believe that the need to develop truly democratic world institutions is imperative at this stage in world history. We need to design carefully a constitution that can be democratically adopted by the people in all nations so that the rights and welfare of everyone are protected by its checks and balances. For this I believe we need much more than the debating society that is the United Nations. We need a constitutional government that is elected by all the people in the world and that has three independent branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) that can protect the rights of all and resolve all international disputes by democratic and judicial processes rather than by the massive violence of armed forces. The question is how long the people of the world will allow the rich and powerful to dominate their lives. By joining together to work for the good of all we can bring about radical changes by nonviolent means so that we can have a world of human equality and peaceful harmony that comes from the establishment of justice. Democracy means participation by the people in the making of important decisions that affect people's lives, and thus it is up to the people to make this come about by our participation in a world-wide movement to disarm the weapons, remove the violent politicians, and implement the new democratic institutions that will enable us to accomplish these goals. I have drafted a proposed Constitution of the Federal Earth Democracy. I hope that this can be a starting point for discussion that could lead to a world constitutional convention that could agree on a constitution to be submitted for ratification to all the nations on Earth. These are only suggestions and can be modified by the process of discussion and negotiation. Yet I have drafted a compete document in order to facilitate the process of actually producing a document that most people can support.

Ideas have been floating around for a long time. An attempt was made beginning in 1958 to call for a world constitutional convention. After preliminary congresses a convention met in 1968, but a first draft was not completed until 1974. A call for ratification of the second draft was issued in 1977, and a provisional world parliament first convened in 1982 with delegates from 25 countries. However, as the constitution was not widely recognized nor ratified by any government or majority of people in any nation, its meetings became more symbolic rather than a practical political organization. This attempt, though well intentioned, was not successful at winning over enough of world opinion to be politically effective. The recent development of instant global communication through the world wide web that is spreading rapidly to millions of people every day has made it possible for the first time to have a discussion throughout the world without delays for transportation. Millions of people can express their views on any given issue, and good ideas can spread like lightning from east to west. The potential for coalescing a majority opinion in the world can now be made actual. New global institutions will emerge, one way or another. I am suggesting that we should make these as wise and nonviolent (loving) as possible for the good of all. I have faith that open discussion will produce better solutions and that people will be able to recognize what is likely to work best. Thus I present the first draft of the Constitution of the Federal Earth Democracy for the world's consideration. The preamble states the main goals as to establish justice and peace among nations, provide for the common security, resolve international disputes, regulate international trade, preserve the environment of the Earth, protect human rights, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity The constitution is federal in that it delegates powers to the democratically elected federal government of the Earth while reserving all other powers to the sovereignty of the people and their nations. The legislative branch of the Federal Earth Democracy (FED) has two houses in order to distribute power to representatives based on population and those from geographic areas. The principle of one vote for each person in the world is the foundation of the Assembly of Representatives, which is based on population. Since it would be difficult for a legislative body with much more than a thousand members to function,

each member represents ten million people. With the current world population of about six and a half billion people this means about 650 members would each have one vote. In addition nations with less than five million people would have a representative with each having one-half vote. Even nations with less than one million people would have a delegate with a voice in the debates but without a vote. An additional safeguard against an attempt to gain more votes by dividing into smaller nations, allows new nations with less than ten million people to have only one representative with one-half vote and new nations with less than five million people one non-voting representative. Currently there are 111 nations with more than five million people that would have at least one full-voting representative, and there are 45 nations with between one million and five million people that would have a representative with one half vote. Depending on what is considered a nation state, the other forty to sixty nations with less than one million people would be allowed to elect a non-voting representative. The other legislative body in the Congress of the Federal Earth Democracy would be the Senate with 180 members. The people in nine regions (China, India, East Asia, North Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, South America, and North America) would elect twenty senators from each region by proportional representation so that each portion of the regions would have fair representation through the political parties that could muster about five percent or more of the vote. The Assembly of Representatives would be elected from districts within the nations every two years by instant run-off voting so that all parties would have a fair chance to be successful. The Senators would have six-year terms with three of the nine regions voting every two years. The Senators and Representatives will receive compensation from the Federal Earth Democracy, and to assure their independence they may not hold any other office in any nation or state while serving in the Congress of the Federal Earth Democracy. An additional safeguard against the corruption of money requires them to forgo any other income while in office. The bicameral legislature requires a majority vote by both the Assembly and Senate to pass laws or resolutions. If the bill they pass is not approved by two-thirds of the Council of Nine Presidents, they may over-ride this veto by a vote of two-thirds in both houses. The Congress of the Federal Earth Democracy will have the power to tax international trade, borrow money, regulate international commerce, coin money and regulate currencies, fix the standards of weights and measures, protect the rights of inventors and authors, establish courts of international law below the Supreme Court, inspect and investigate compliance with treaties and violations of the laws of the Federal Earth Democracy, organize and equip peacekeeping missions to resolve international conflicts, and make laws necessary for carrying out its responsibilities.

The executive power is headed by the Council of Nine Presidents, who will be elected directly by the people voting in the nine regions. They serve six-year terms, and every two years three regions each elect one President. The largest region in population contains only the nation of China with a little over 1300 million people. The second largest is India and also includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives with a little more than 1100 million people. Third in population is East Asia with about 800 million, and it includes Japan, the Koreas, Southeast Asia, and the island nations of the Pacific including Australia and New Zealand. The region called Africa has about 700 million people; it includes all the nations in Africa except the North African countries that are in the Middle East region, which is fifth in population with about 570 million. Next in population is Europe with about 530 million including Turkey. The North America region includes the nations of Central America and has about 470 million people. The North Asia region has about 460 million people and includes Russia and many of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia plus Mongolia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal. The smallest region by population is South America with a little over 400 million, and it includes the island nations of the Caribbean. Having nine regions electing Presidents and Senators is intended to help balance out the densely populated nations of Asia and Africa that are so strongly represented in the Assembly. As population becomes more evenly spread around the globe, the differences between the regions in population are likely to decrease. I believe that the Council of Nine Presidents is better and safer than having a single president of the world or even a smaller number. Thus the Presidents of at least six regions must approve legislation (unless their veto is over-ridden), and also this twothirds majority is needed for enforcing the laws of the Federal Earth Democracy. The Supreme Court is the highest authority in the judicial branch of the Federal Earth Democracy. Nine judges serve nine-year terms, one being appointed each year by the President and Senators of each region with the advice and consent of three-fifths of the Senate. The judges may be reappointed. They have jurisdiction over all cases affecting international relations, the seas, and conflicts between nations and citizens of different nations. Levying war is considered treason against the Federal Earth Democracy. The Presidents and any officers of the Federal Earth Democracy may be impeached by the Assembly of Representatives for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and those impeached are tried by the Supreme Court. Many rights are explicitly protected in the Constitution of the Federal Earth Democracy including those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Federal Earth Democracy guarantees the human rights of people of every nation under a republican form of government and will protect the people of each nation against invasion and domestic violence. The Constitution can be amended. It

recognizes that all treaties made under the Federal Earth Democracy are the supreme law on Earth, and every nation will be bound by them. Congress may not prohibit immigration that the nations permit nor may it suspend habeas corpus nor pass ex post facto laws. No nation will be allowed to send military forces outside their borders without the consent of Congress; neither may nations make military alliances with each other nor may they engage in war. Congress may not establish any religion nor may it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and no religious test shall ever be required to hold an office in the Federal Earth Democracy. Freedom of speech, the press, and the right of people to assemble peaceably are guaranteed. No unreasonable searches or seizures may be granted. Every person has the right to a trial by jury, the assistance of counsel, and protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Slavery is banned from the Earth, and the right to vote may not be denied "on account of race, color, sex, religion, political association, sexual orientation, or previous condition," nor to anyone eighteen or older because of age. The age limit is set in the elections of the Federal Earth Democracy so that no nation will attempt to get more votes in Presidential and Senatorial elections by lowering the age limit. Every person on Earth has the right to attend free public schools, use free public libraries, and receive free health care. Congress may pass no law "interfering with a patient's right to be treated by a physician." Election campaigns are to be publicly financed, and only small contributions by individuals are allowed for candidates in elections in which they are entitled to vote. Public debates and the publishing of sample ballots are financed by the Federal Earth Democracy. No candidate may keep campaign donations after the election, and no office holder may have any other income besides the compensation by the Federal Earth Democracy. These remedies are very important in order to remove the corruption of money interests from the political decision-making process. Finally, to go into effect the Constitution of the Federal Earth Democracy must be ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the nations with more than one million people or by a majority vote of the citizens in three fourths of the nations with more than one million people. The Federal Earth Democracy would hold elections in odd-numbered years with primaries in May and general elections in November. The Federal Earth Democracycould function in various locations by modern means of communication and eventually could choose its own capital for the Congress and Council of Nine Presidents and their administration, and the Supreme Court. Since the vast majority of

human population is in the large land mass that makes up Asia, Europe, and Africa, the most practical location to make transportation most efficient might be somewhere in Central Asia or the Middle East. The idea occurred to me that Kashmir might elect to be an independent country, settle their religious conflicts, and perhaps become a central seat of government for the Federal Earth Democracy. If Kashmir did become an independent nation, I think that it could be part of the North Asia region. As the Federal Earth Democracy begins to function, it could take over the agencies that have been a part of the United Nations framework, just as the UN took over the League of Nations agencies. The main purpose of the Federal Earth Democracy is to resolve international conflicts, and by reducing military violence and military expenditures it could allow needed development to alleviate poverty and provide health care and education for all. However, each nation would still maintain sovereignty over its own internal affairs as long as it did not violate human rights or attempt to foment the violence of war. The governments of the nations would decide what kind of social and economic systems they want to have by their own democratic processes. Only when a group of people attempts to force their way on others by using violence would the Federal Earth Democracy be allowed to intervene and bring the violators to justice through its courts. As long as the people on the Earth are peaceful, the budget of the Federal Earth Democracy can be small and its government very limited. The nations can provide their own systems of health care and education, but they may be assisted by wealthy nations, groups, and individuals.