This proposal asks Americans a simple but important question:

Should the United States require voter identification in order to vote in national elections?

Supporters of voter ID argue that verifying voter identity is a foundational requirement for a functioning democracy. In most areas of modern life—banking, travel, employment, and digital finance—identity verification is already required to prevent fraud, ensure fairness, and build public trust. From this perspective, elections should meet the same standard.

Critics of voter ID laws raise concerns around accessibility, implementation, and the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters if systems are poorly designed or unevenly applied. Any discussion of voter ID must consider not only security, but also inclusivity and ease of participation.

Internationally, many developed democracies—including Canada, most European Union countries, and others—require some form of voter identification while maintaining high voter participation rates. These examples suggest that voter ID and democratic access are not mutually exclusive when implemented responsibly.

Within the XPR Network, governance voting already requires KYC verification through Metal Identity. This ensures that each vote represents a unique, real individual while keeping voting free and accessible once verified. This system offers a real-world example of how identity verification can coexist with open participation in a digital governance environment.

This vote is non-binding and intended to gauge community sentiment only.

Voting is free, but participation requires KYC verification (free) via: https://identity.metalx.com with your WebAuth Wallet.

Proposal Purpose

To preserve the sovereignty, continuity, and legitimacy of the United States by invoking existing constitutional and statutory mechanisms to address credible evidence of grave crimes that, if left unexamined, present material risk to national stability, public trust, and international standing.

This proposal does not presume guilt, does not call for punishment, and does not advocate extra legal action. It calls solely for constitutionally authorized processes to be activated in an orderly, constrained, and lawful manner.

Context and Trigger for Immediate Constitutional Review

The recent release of previously sealed and lawfully obtained justice system documents, including filings, evidentiary records, and internal investigative materials, has revealed credible, non trivial indications that multiple individuals may have participated in or materially enabled grave crimes and related federal offenses of a nature recognized by the international community as crimes against humanity.

Regardless of where the alleged conduct may have occurred, such actions, if substantiated, would remain subject to:

• United States law where jurisdiction attaches
• Constitutional due process guarantees
• Treaty obligations and international legal scrutiny

The materials appear, in part, to originate from:

• Domestic investigative bodies acting under lawful authority
• Judicial proceedings subject to procedural safeguards
• Corroborated records indicating coordination, financing, facilitation, or command responsibility

The apparent scope of the materials further suggests that:

• Multiple high ranking government officials, potentially including individuals holding the highest constitutional offices, may be implicated
• Non office holding individuals with extraordinary financial, institutional, or informational power may also be implicated
• The alleged conduct, if substantiated, would exceed ordinary criminal matters and rise to the level of systemic constitutional and international law risk

In addition, the materials raise credible concerns that certain individuals or entities may have acted to impede, delay, suppress, or otherwise interfere with the lawful investigation, disclosure, or adjudication of the alleged conduct. Such actions, if substantiated, would independently threaten the integrity of constitutional governance by compromising the ability of lawful institutions to function as designed.

At this stage:

• No conclusions are asserted
• No individual guilt is presumed
• No determinations of legality, intent, or culpability are made with respect to either the alleged conduct or any potential interference

However, the existence of such materials constitutes a threshold oversight event. Failure to initiate timely constitutional review materially increases the risk of:

• Institutional compromise or capture
• Erosion of public confidence in lawful governance
• Foreign legal, diplomatic, or jurisdictional intervention
• Irreversible damage to the legitimacy of constitutional authority

Accordingly, established investigative and oversight mechanisms must be activated without delay, without spectacle, and without deviation from due process, and must encompass review of both the underlying alleged conduct and any actions taken to obstruct, impede, or compromise lawful investigative and oversight processes.

For purposes of this proposal, constitutional review refers to the exercise of existing congressional, judicial, and executive oversight authorities to evaluate conduct and institutional responses for consistency with the United States Constitution and federal law.

Foundational Principles

Continuity of Government Is Paramount

The Constitution presumes that institutions endure even when individuals fail. This proposal distinguishes clearly between the permanence of the Republic and the accountability of individuals, whether officeholders or private actors, acting within its jurisdiction.

Process Precedes Outcome

No conclusions are asserted. The objective is investigation, adjudication, and due process, not predetermined results.

Civilian Supremacy and Constitutional Restraint

All actions must remain under civilian authority, judicial oversight, and time limited mandates consistent with constitutional norms.

Preservation Over Punishment

The intent is to reduce systemic risk, prevent institutional capture, and uphold the rule of law, not to inflame divisions, generate spectacle, or create martyrs.

Constitutional and Statutory Basis for Action

This proposal relies on existing constitutional authorities and established doctrine, including but not limited to:

Article I

• Congressional investigatory and oversight powers long recognized as implied powers necessary to legislate and oversee
• Impeachment authority vested in the House and trial authority vested in the Senate
• Authority to structure adjudication through Article III courts, including specialized procedures or panels consistent with jury trial and due process guarantees

Article II

• Executive duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
• Authority to appoint prosecutors and, where appropriate, Special Counsel under Department of Justice regulations and statutory frameworks

Article III

• Judicial power to adjudicate federal crimes
• Authority to interpret the Constitution and ensure due process and equal protection

The 25th Amendment

• Temporary incapacity provisions, where constitutionally applicable

Existing Federal Statutes

• Department of Justice Special Counsel regulations

• Federal statutes addressing grave crimes and related offenses, including but not limited to:
• Sexual assault and aggravated sexual abuse
• Crimes involving the abuse, exploitation, endangerment, or neglect of minors
• Sex trafficking and exploitation
• Crimes involving coercion, force, or abuse of power
• Civil rights violations
• Homicide and related violent offenses including torture
• Obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering
• Bribery, fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering, as applicable

• Asset forfeiture, injunctions, and court supervised receivership tools, pursuant to judicial warrant and individualized findings

No constitutional amendments are proposed.
No suspension of the Constitution is requested.

Phase I Immediate Constitutional Safeguards Stabilization

Activation of a Congressional Special Investigative Mandate

Congress, exercising its Article I authority, shall establish a narrowly scoped, bipartisan investigative body empowered to:

• Secure and preserve evidence
• Issue subpoenas pursuant to law
• Refer findings to appropriate judicial and executive authorities

This body shall operate under:

• A defined mandate
• A fixed timeline
• Judicial review of contested actions

Temporary Institutional Safeguards Non Punitive

Where credible evidence indicates potential conflicts with constitutional duties or risks to ongoing investigations:

• Lawful restrictions on access to specific operational systems, such as classified compartments, where authorized by statute or chamber rules
• Ethics based recusal, firewalling, or delegation mechanisms
• Use of impeachment, chamber discipline, or 25th Amendment processes where constitutionally required

All such measures shall be subject to immediate judicial or chamber review and are precautionary, not punitive.

Phase II Independent Adjudication Legitimacy Preservation

Appointment of an Independent Special Counsel

Under existing Department of Justice regulations:

• A Special Counsel shall be appointed with a limited and explicit mandate
• Full operational independence from political leadership
• Obligations to report findings consistent with law to Congress and the courts

Use of Article III Judicial Processes If Required

If complexity, scale, or conflicts of interest justify it, Congress may provide for adjudication through Article III courts, including:

• Designated panels or specialized procedures
• Full adherence to federal rules of evidence and criminal procedure
• Jury trial rights and full appellate review

This process shall not involve military tribunals and shall not supplant civilian courts.

Phase III Transparency Public Confidence and De-Escalation

Parallel Truth and Disclosure Mechanisms

To preserve public trust without prejudicing criminal proceedings:

• A constitutionally compliant fact finding and disclosure process
• Public release of non classified findings
• Cooperation incentives or protections only as authorized by statute, plea agreements, or judicial orders

This process exists to inform the public, not to replace courts.

Financial and Institutional Risk Controls

Where necessary to prevent destabilization:

• Temporary asset freezes, forfeiture actions, or injunctions issued under judicial warrant
• Court supervised receivership or oversight of entities critical to national infrastructure, where legally justified
• Coordination with allies strictly within treaty and statutory frameworks

Safeguards Against Abuse

To ensure this process does not itself threaten liberty:

• Sunset clauses on any extraordinary authorities
• Supermajority thresholds for renewal where applicable
• Independent judicial review at every stage
• Public reporting consistent with national security requirements

Explicit Rejections

This proposal explicitly rejects:

• Extra constitutional action
• Vigilantism or popular tribunals
• Military governance or coercion
• Collective guilt or political purges
• Predetermined penalties or outcomes

The armed forces remain neutral and subordinate to civilian authority at all times.

Conclusion

The Constitution was designed not only for ordinary times, but for moments when its own integrity is tested.

Invoking its mechanisms under stress is not sedition.
Ignoring them in fear of discomfort is dereliction.

This proposal calls for constitutional compliance, institutional restraint, and measured action so that the Republic emerges intact, legitimate, and stronger than the actions of any individual.

This proposal does not adjudicate facts, accuse persons, or direct enforcement. It records a governance level preference for lawful constitutional due process review by competent institutions.