Cal,
Although I appreciate your request for suggestions in this matter, I don't know that anyone can meet your criteria of both credible and legal. Pretty much any non voilent suggestion will have a level of credibility. I perfer the Nancy Reagan approach to address the drug problem. Just say no. However credible and effective that approach may be in starving the beast, every one of us knows that so long as the government is the sole arbiter of what is legal and what is not, absolutely no action that the people could initiate would ever be considered legal. We are always under the threat of the government gun. Nonetheless, here goes. Citizens, en mass, just say no!
Congress returned to "work" this week (now there's a laugh) to complete its lame-duck session before taking another holiday. Spending other people's money is a taxing experience.
Their task is to avoid the "fiscal cliff," a geological construct of their own making. It doesn't take a genius to predict both parties will try to do two things: (1) reach an agreement that will allow each side to take some credit and (2) require those who work for a living to pay government more while they come up with phony, or inconsequential spending "cuts."
Whatever they do, payroll taxes...
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Gee, what a concept from the man credited as the father of the constitution. And no barry, it ain't "flawed".