GO TO CONTENTS
Destroy America


VOTE FOR

The Lesser of Evils



Then, complain a lot —and do nothing.




Such has been our history. We, and the past generation have voted for the lesser of evils, which is exactly what we got -evils. We helped them rip our nation apart.

A destroyed nation can be our future, should we decide to continue the same path as the past.


If we should desire a better nation for our children than we inherited from our parents, and if we truly desire to improve our future, we must improve our today.



the following solutions presented by Daniel Kingery


















Rights






— not exercised —



are soon forgotten









The People (the Governed)

forever possess the right

— and DUTY —

to alter, abolish, or throw off

their Bad Government.



Paraphrased from the
1776 Founding Charter
for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

















Destroy AMERICA —Vote for "The Lesser of Evils" © 2010 All Rights Reserved by Daniel Kingery Author's E-mail: dmkingery@gmail.com

Destroy AMERICA —Vote for "The Lesser of Evils"; (Guide Rights) licensed to Portable Publishing, Willcox, AZ 85644

www.portablepublishing.com

ppublish@portablepublishing.com














Table of Contents



“The Lesser of Evils”
Acknowledgments

Orientation
Testing Your Candidates
Form of Government
Rights vs. Privileges
The UNITED STATES Founders
Some Good Advice
Working with Sound Advice

Part I: The Problem
How to Destroy Your Country
Horses & Candidates   
Political Talk Show 
The Self-Proclaimed Conservative   
The Entrepreneur 
The Law Professor
The Judge
The Candidate
From a Doctor
From Another Doctor, Candidate, and Congressman
The Governor
“Educational” Material
Additional “Educational” Material
Is It Any Wonder?
A Political Emergency
Hotter Water
Buying Congress

Part II: Understanding The 1787 Constitution
Introduction to Understanding
Sovereign Powers
Tyranny Defined
Power to Amend the Constitution
Power to Interpret the Constitution
Little Known Constitutional Facts
Constitutional Violations
An Important Day in History
Drawing a Line
1776 —The Sequel
The Importance of the Written Word

Part III: The Journey to Solutions
Interviewing the UNITED STATES Founders
Finding Value
Do Something Different
Non-Voters
An Unjust Authority
Founding Principle
The CHAIN of Political Command
The Value of Constitutional Conventions
UNITED STATES Law and Government
Writing Law: The Short Course
A Constitution (Generally)
TREASON

Part IV: Solutions
National Identification Card
Primarily Trash
Natural Disaster Prevention
Government Assistance Programs 
Revised Social-Individual Security 
Taxation

Part V: A New Form of Government
About the Proposed Constitution
The Need for a New Form of Government
PROPOSED: Constitution
Preamble
Article 1: UNITED STATES Founding Documents
Section 1: UNITED STATES Founding Charter (1776)
Section 2: Treaty of Paris (1783)

Article 2: Summary of the Founding Charter
Article 3: Definitions
Article 4: Legislative Branch
Article 5: Executive Branch
Article 6: Judicial Branch
Article 7: Open Records
Article 8: Debts Prior to Enactment
Article 9: Added Political Restrictions
Article 10: Ratification

Concluding With Action:
The Messianic Contagion
Are We Ants or People
Mind Power
Strength in Numbers
Sending a Stronger Message



 

 










“The Lesser of Evils”





With Destroy AMERICA —Vote for “The Lesser of Evils”, you learn how a vote for “The Lesser of Evils” destroys our country and our rights. The “Lesser of Evils” vote proves far deadlier to our country, as the destruction goes unnoticed for many generations.

Destroy AMERICA —Vote for “The Lesser of Evils” defines the problems and provides time-tested, proven-effective, constructive solutions to our nation's growing problems. These solutions send to our government politicians the strongest message that it is we the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who control our government.

Comment on "The Lesser of Evils" BLOG







When government's All Screwed Up!

You are Reading

The Un-Screwdriver

—USE IT!—




What is FREEDOM from tyranny worth to you?









[Return to Table of Contents]










Acknowledgments





While writing Destroy AMERICA —Vote for “The Lesser of Evils” it finally dawned on me why authors tender so much praise to their editors and readers. Thank you all for helping improve this guide. Together, we removed the more unbelievable elements and clarified the confusing.

I must thank the other publishers for their rejections. Without them, I might never have focused this guide's content to the single title-topic of how we destroy our country by voting for “The Lesser of Evils“ and how we might use our vote more powerfully to control our government. Along this topic is the need for solutions. You also find within this guide time-tested and sometimes forgotten solutions.

Thank you Portable Publishing for producing Destroy AMERICA —Vote for “The Lesser of Evils”. Challenging the status quo, they agreed to publish this guide without an ISBN number or a Library of Congress number. In exchange, they swore to hold my fanny to the fire when it comes to spreading the word. Refer to the section Strength in Numbers to understand how your efforts go a long way to help improve our country. What better way to demonstrate how to work the strategy of mathematical doubling than to use it to market Destroy AMERICA —Vote for “The Lesser of Evils“.

Most importantly, much thanks to you. Thank you for buying and reading this book; thank you in advance for helping spread the word so that together we will improve our country. It is not at all satisfying to merely know that we are the best in a world headed to hell in a hand basket. It is better to know that we are better today than we were at any given time in the past.

We did not seek perfection before publishing. If we waited for this guide to become “perfect”, you may never read these words in enough time to help repair our government. Your continued feedback helps improve future editions of this guide, as well as improving our country and the world around us.








[Return to Table of Contents]









Orientation







Testing Your Candidates





If you do not test your chosen candidates as to whether they properly understand their duties and powers, should you be successful in electing them, whose fault is it when the elected candidate proves to you that they are seriously unqualified?

For you to properly test your candidates, you must know the correct answers to the tests that you present.

If you do not thoroughly understand the rules by which your candidate is supposed to work within, when elected, how on earth do you know whether your favorite candidate properly understands those rules and will commit to working within them?

Perhaps you don't care.

Perhaps you merely want bragging rights to say that you voted for the elected candidate —the most likely to win.

Maybe you just want the candidate most likely to support your personal political agenda, regardless of whoever else is harmed.

You might be among those who only want a candidate who looks great on television and sounds good on the radio. So long as they look and sound good, you do not care what the candidate tells you or might even attempt while in office.

Just maybe, you really do care and you do want the best qualified in office but you may not know where or how to start looking for that candidate.

First of all, do not get all impressed because your candidate might know all the correct answers to your questions. My parents taught me that book learn'n is one thing, what matters is whether they know how to apply that knowledge. What you really want to know is how the candidate might react in a few mock scenarios to find out where they really stand.

Even if you find your perfect candidate, getting them elected is only the first half of your duties. The last half of your duties is enforcing the rules of the Constitution on your candidate, should they decide to try to ignore the Constitution. Then, if that fails, the toughest part of your duties comes to surface. You must do all you are able to get that politician out of office as soon as possible before the end of their regular term.

The most important element to remember is that we the people, in the same fashion that businesses are responsible for the actions of their employees, we the people are 100% responsible for the actions of our politicians. If we do not remove the bad ones from office before the end of their normal term, we act as though we fully agree with the bad actions of those politicians. We must remove them early and repair the damage they created.

If the people refuse to RECALL their disloyal politicians before the next general election, all the evils that the politician performs fall squarely in the laps of the constituents; all of the constituents, not merely the ones who voted for that politician.

Comment on Testing Your Candidates BLOG









[Return to Table of Contents]















Form of Government





What is a "Form of Government"?

Based on observations, government forms possess two clearly definite aspects, the letter and the body.

The letter part of the form of government is not flesh and bone, it is the written rules by which the governed people intended control their government's flesh and bone form of their government. Those written rules are generally known as constitutions.

As for the body part of the form of government, it is the physical body of elected and then appointed, hired, and contracted persons who perform the day-to-day necessities of managing and fulfilling the letter part of the form.

To understand where this form of government obtain its life, we must turn to the source of power for that government —the governed. As the source for both the life and power of governments, the governed forever possess the rights and duty to alter or abolish any part of the letter of their government, as well as removal of any member of the flesh and bones body of the government.

Altering or abolishing the letter of government, the people, unified in their efforts, will amend or replace their constitutions. Altering the body of the government, the people, unified in their efforts, will recall and replace defective government officials who refuse to work within the confines of the constitution.

For clarity, many hear politicians speak of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. Only corrupted politicians who seek unjust powers desire to create some spirit where there should be only the law. When the letter of the law is written and passed by those with financial interests in such vaguely written laws, politicians are able to raise all sort of demons out of those laws. Conflict of interest should prevent every lawyer and judge from creating and passing laws.

All of the governments of and within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA were supposed to create easy to understand and easy to follow laws for the establishment of justice. We now live with the need to crank the one-arm-bandit of government and take our chances as to what any given laws was intended to accomplish. Even with the assistance of lawyer advice, we never know for certain whether we are in the right or wrong.

All of this injustice happened while we slept through the events that occurred after we posted our politician guards in office.

Comment on Form of Government BLOG









[Return to Table of Contents]















Rights vs. Privileges



Too many of us, without question, accept what our teachers; a group that includes political candidates, government officials, judges, and parents; tell us on this subject.

A great modern example of this misdirected education is on the topic of driving. You have every right to drive. Early in the life of the automobile, the people enjoyed every right to drive the auto anywhere they had the right to ride a horse, so long as they could get the auto to those location. No license or government permission required.

With an increase of automobiles and a decrease of safe vehicle operators, the people granted to their government certain powers to regulate the right of the people to freely drive on public roads and public lands. The people allowed these regulations based on two Constitutional Principles, domestic tranquility and the general welfare. In short, the people authorize the regulations for public safety and not individual safety.

Seat-belt laws are designed for personal or individual safety and not within the powers granted to government. The operator's license regulations required drivers to understand and obey certain rules-of-the-road in order to prevent chaos in the streets.

Because the original generation who granted to government the authority to regulate our right-to-drive, no longer lives, our politicians came to believe, and now want us to accept as truth, that it is they who grant to us the privilege to drive. They do not. We the people grant to our politicians the authority, the limited privilege, to ensure that vehicle operators attain minimal skills before turning them loose on public roads.

Another example of the people granting to our politicians the authority or privilege to interfere in our rights is that of our right to privacy. We possess the right to privacy. In the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 4, we continue to grant to our government the limited power to intervene into our private lives for only one purpose: Criminal activity. The Constitutional authority that we grant to our government is very specific. The government must have probable cause that the individual committed a crime. The government official must obtain a warrant that specifies the items or person sought, as well as other specific criteria.

The only war-time actions, aside from defending the nation, that the people granted to our governments that interferes closely with the lives of the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was that of quartering soldiers in private residents during time of war. Not spying on our own citizens.

As soon as we can think of an action, we possess the right freely to perform that act; right up until the time we the people grant to our government the limited power to regulate a specific right. The only way for the people to abuse any right is when they interfere with others who also try to enjoy their rights.

In most cases, the 1787 Constitutional Generation already granted to government the limited authority to regulate several of our rights. Such government limitations must remain restricted to maintaining the six elements of the Preamble for the Constitution for the United States of America.

When government officials abuse the powers we grant to them or have not yet granted to them, we must amend those powers. We must either specifically forbid government use of those powers or we must specify the extent to which they may lawfully use those powers.



Comment on Rights vs. Privileges BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]














The UNITED STATES Founders





The small groups of people who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 Constitution and its Bill of Rights on behalf of the people are not the Founders. They were only a few from among them, chosen by the people to represent the people.

Because those signers possessed male-gendered names, they received improper recognition as the Founding Fathers. Those signers are none other than the Representatives of the True Founders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Evidence of this fact appears in the first line of the last paragraph of the UNITED STATES Founding Charter (popularly known as the Declaration of Independence, 1776), which states:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES... do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People...”

The true Founders included both male and female. They included everyone who lived in the thirteen British Colonies during the time those Colonies became the Free and Independent UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Yes! Our UNITED STATES Founders include those who lived in the Colonies and fought on the side of Great Britain and in opposition to the Colonies becoming Free and Independent States. Why? Those in opposition expressed their concerns about retaining or losing the parts of the British government that worked well, at least up until a few years prior to the increased political abuses.

For those reasons, I do not name those who represented the Founders, nor do I refer to them as our Founding Fathers. Doing so, in my opinion, ignores an entire generation, the numerous others who risked their lives, honor, and fortunes to defend this new Nation.



Comment on The UNITED STATES Founders BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]














Some Good Advice





Growing up, I heard my parents offer the following advice, in addition to much more, to at least one of us kids at one time or another.

“Beware of those who tell you to do as they say, and not as they do.”

“Just because we tell you a certain matter is true, it's your responsibility to make sure it is true before you accept it as a truth.”

“When you are old enough to know we did not teach you correctly or when you recognize other problems in your life, you are then old enough to begin correcting the situations for yourself and no longer have anyone but yourself to blame.”

“Sticks and stones may break your bones but names (words) can never hurt you.”

If you only knew how many times our parents spoke those stick and stones words to one of us kids when we came home with some of our stories. Who says that the dead stop teaching when dead? Sometimes, that is when they accomplish some of their best guidance.

People may give us broken bones and bloody noses when they physically assault us. The only pain that we receive from the words of others is self-inflicted. The wounds that we receive from words are self-inflicted because it is either what we believe about ourselves or perhaps our misplaced value in others that cause us to feel pain from the words of others.

My parents taught us kids about some god always watching over us, but the religious aspect of someone always watching me and knowing what I was doing never bothered me. After all, my parents never told me that it was some god or angel that told them of the wrongs that I did at school or elsewhere.

As with the incident at the post office when I broke that nickel-deposit bottle that I didn't catch. I figured that their informants were neighbors, someone at school, or the post mistress as they never gave a name of their informant.

My, these folks had it going. Without telling me the names of their informants, I never knew exactly who ratted me out. If I knew who, then I could deliberately avoid them.

Then, there is the whole incident about pointing fingers. When us kids went to blame another, Dad and Mom frequently reminded us that more fingers pointed back at us, as well as reminding us that two wrongs do not make one right.


Comment on Some Good Advice BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]














Working with Sound Advice





While under the tutelage of Dad and Mom, more than once in eighteen years, Dad referred to himself with these words:

“I may be just a dumb-ole country boy, but...”

When I heard his “but...” I knew he was about the send a valuable lesson my way.

The following pages are merely me practicing the lessons that my parents passed along to me. They taught me how to understand the world around me and they taught me to challenge the claims made by others about that world. They taught me to not merely trust the opinions from others, just because they hold some respectable position.







[Return to Table of Contents]















Part I: The Problem









How to Destroy Your Country





Once we the people forget our rights and our duties —that of our power as Citizens, we invite our politicians to easily manipulate us.

This reminds me of the story about how to bind the true powers of an elephant. From birth, the trainer ties a strong rope to the elephant's foot. The elephant becomes used to the weight and strength of the rope. As the years pass, the rope becomes frail. Though the elephant is much stronger, it feels the weight of the rope and knows that it cannot break free, so it refuses to try.

As a generation, we act as if we do not understand the full power of our proper role in controlling our government. While we approach voting age, others bind us with the ropes of we can’t fight city hall and that we must vote, even if it is for The Lesser of Evils.

When we elect a candidate we expect might destroy our country (albeit slower than other candidates) we destroy our own country. We commit treason in the process. We give aide to those enemies of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.



Comment on How to Destroy Your Country BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]














Horses & Candidates





Ever hear some of the reasons that people place money on a horse? Do any of these sound familiar?

I like the way it looks. I like the sound of its name. It has to be good, look at all the money they put into it. It comes from good blood. It looks like it has the best chances of winning.

Does any of this sound familiar?

How many times has someone said the same about their favorite political candidate? They like the name, the looks, they have a lot of money bet on the candidate, or it looks like they will win.

Worse yet, far too many others openly admit that they vote for their candidate because their choice is "The Lesser of Evils." Other voters act as though they have a bet riding on the candidate.

In a way, special interest voters and organizations do have a bet riding on their candidate. They vote for the one most likely to provide a profitable return on their contribution, to heck with what's best for the country.



Comment on Horses & Candidates BLOG



[Return to Table of Contents]










Political Talk Show

From the book, Trickle Down Tyranny by Michael Savage, © 2102...

The following concerns come from reading Chapter One (Advice to the Nest President: A Savage Worldview).

Michael Savage, along with the other writers discussed in this section of the book, gets a lot of the same simple concepts completely wrong.

Page 3, Paragraph 3,

We need to mandate and support the most electable Republican in the field, because an Obama victory in 2012 would doom this country”

Page 3, Paragraph 6,

It’s never been more important that we vote a sitting president out of office. ... If the man chosen by Republicans to run against Barack Obama will follow the battle plan I outline here...”

Only three pages into Michael’s book and he presents some of the worst advice and information that he could, especially with so many people listening to and “hanging” on his every word.

By his own words, Michael is what I call a Vegas Voter.

A Vegas Voter is a person who votes for the candidate who is most likely to win (sort of like a horse or dog race). Michael does not seem at all concerned about the republican candidate’s qualification (aside from constitutional qualifications) for the office. He is concerned with electability.

Michael presents only three criteria for his perfect candidate:

  1. The candidate must be a Republican

  2. The candidate must be the most electable

  3. The candidate must be male

Mr. Savage proves to be part of the problem. He has a “big voice”, in that many people listen to what he has to say. The information he conveys, especially in this book, lacks sufficient understanding with respect to who Sovereign Authority and the powers of government as they relate to the Nation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which becomes apparent as we proceed through Chapter One.

When Michael remarks about –voting an undesirable politician out of office. He makes the all too common mistake of assuming that the people vote a politician out of office during the General Election. They do not. During the General Election, the voters merely hire the next person to fill a specific government office for a contracted term.

Elected government officials are contract labor. These people are contracted with for a specific number of years with an option to renew that contract a limited number of times (provided sufficient numbers of voters agree to renew the contract).

Most people have no idea that they hold the power of Recall Elections to actually Fire their politicians, as it removes the politician before the end of their contracted term. General Elections are for Hiring or Renewing a contract. Recall Elections have been available to the Governed People in the Nation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA since about July 1776.





Page 8 (Restoring National Defense), Paragraph 2...

The vote in the Senate to approve the defense billing was 93 to 7.”

Obama' response?”

Here's what Obama's veto means...”

He's holding the U.S. military hostage...”

Michael does not indicate the House vote.

Even if Obama vetoes a Bill, the Senate and the House can override that veto with a 2/3 favorable vote. Because of the veto override, the president can not hold the military hostage without the assistance of Congress.





Page 16, Paragraph 2...

If the Supreme Court doesn't shut down Obamacare by the summer of 2012, the next president needs to shut it down by executive order.”

As much as Michael pretends to demand that our politicians follow the Constitution, he actually favors and encourages our politicians to usurp and abuse powers (so long as those abuses favor Michael's personal agenda).

Executive Orders, those that act as legislation; Court Ruling, especially those that act legislatively; and Congressional Legislation that exceeds the powers granted by the Constitution; each of those actions mentions violate the Constitution in two ways:

  1. Article 1, Section 1, which states; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...”

  2. Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Congress only has authority to makes laws in the areas specifically named in the Constitution –herein granted.

Article 1 certainly makes it clear that only Congress has any legislative powers. The Constitution does not grant any legislative powers to the Executive (President) or Judicial (Courts).

Many people mistakenly assume that creating laws are the only legislative activity. It is not. It also includes, amending and repealing. So whenever a person says that the Courts or the President should “repeal” some law or to change some government program, such actions qualify as legislative; as well as a usurpation and an abuse of power.

Amendment 10 clarifies that point. If the powers were not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, those powers do not exist. If the Constitution does not forbid to the States any specific powers, the States possess those powers, provided the people of the respective State granted to that State that power.





Page 18, Paragraph 3,

The legislation that dictates that anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen must be repealed.”

Legislation is something that Congress does with respect to our Nation. It also is what State Legislatures do for their respective States.

The “legislation” to which Michael refers is that of the Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1; which actually is not legislation but –the Rule of Legislation. The Constitution is the Rule for our government officials, not the people.

When we realize that America includes South America, Central America, Mexico, the United States, and Canada; Amendment 14 only specifies that the person be born in the United States –not America. Of course Michael may refer to some other law passed by Congress, which would actually violate the Constitution.

I so agree with Michael to a limited degree, in that Amendment 14 needs a clarification amendment that specifies that the mother must also be a United States citizen in order for the child to receive U.S. Citizenship at birth.





Page 19 (Restoring the Constitution) Paragraph 2

The next president must restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the foundation of our country's laws. He must make a new Declaration of Independence...”

Imagine that, Savage spends the first 18 pages instructing the next president how to violate the Constitution –now he wants to “restore it”?

As for a new Declaration of Independence?

Sounds as though Savage wants to create a new Nation.

The Declaration of Independence that we presently have serve perfectly as our Nation's Founding Charter, once more people actually read it for the sole purpose of understanding its content –which provides the legal authority for the people to control their government.





Page 30 (Why Do I Call It It Trickle Down Tyranny?) Paragraph 1...

I choose my words carefully. I do exhaustive research and consider all the evidence. So when I tell you that Obama is a tyrant with a relentless desire to undermine our country, I mean what I say and I know what I'm talking about.”

Although Michael seems to have read the Declaration of Independence, I question his “exhaustive research” about what he claims to be “Obama's tyranny”. Had he got just a little more “exhaustive” he would realize that that the tyranny that Obama presently uses began many years ago; at least as early as 1803 when the Courts usurped the unconstitutional power of Judicial Review and that of prior President's unconstitutional use of the power of the Executive Order; not to mention the unconstitutional abuse of power by Congress that legislate over us in almost every aspect of our lives.

Obama did not initiate this tyranny. If we the people get our heads out of our own backsides, Obama will be the last government official expand that tyranny.

Michael errors in his research again when he writes on Page 30,

Tyranny starts at the top. The people don't cause tyranny, their rulers do.”

The last time the country was faced with having to rid itself of a ruler like the one currently occupying the White House was in 1776.”

Mr. Savage simply has not complete much of his “exhaustive research”. If he had, he would notice the difference in the way the Sovereign Authority changed from pre- to post-1776. In the pre-1776 world, where the colonies were under the rule of King George III, the King was the Sovereign Authority. In the post-1776, where the colonies became Free and Independent States, the Governed People became the Sovereign Authority.

In the Nation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA every government official and employee; which includes the Congress, the President, and the Courts; literally are servants to the Sovereign Authority.

Michael's statements is both right and wrong. Tyranny does start at the top with the Sovereign Authority. The People –the Governed- are that top.

Tyranny in Nation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gets it start when the people of any generation fail to unite in efforts to prevent government officials from violating the rights of the people. So long as corrupted government officials can divide the people into a myriad of feuding groups, those groups are far less likely to unite to help each other control tyrannical abuses of power.





Page 39 (Obama's Tyranny Brings Loss of Freedom) Paragraph 1...

[H]ostile to the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Not one place in the Constitution does it grant to the people any rights; nor does the Constitution guarantee to the people any rights. Every place in the Constitution where any of our rights are listed, We the People either prohibited government interference in those rights or we granted to our government some limited involvement in those rights.

The only Rights guarantee that we the people possess is that of making certain that we properly control the powers of our government.



[Return to Table of Contents]























Self-Proclaimed Conservative
Radio-Talk Constitution-Lawyer

The following are my Comments on the book, Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark Levin; © by Mark R. Levin.

To give Mark credit, he does state that the content of his book is his own opinion.

S
o be it. Everyone is entitled to be wrong from time to time: I write while I am stepping down off of my “high-horse and pedestal”.

The following comments about Mark’s opinions are based on the actual contracts, where Mark seems to formulate his opinions from what others wrote about those contracts and/or wrote about the people who signed those contracts. Granted, many of his resources are impressive. Some of them come straight from the pins and paper of those responsible for writing those contracts or from the Representative who signed the contracts on the behalf of the People who actually approved the contracts.

The reason that I choose to use the actual contracts is because they are not tainted with the opinions and desires that those individuals tried to get inserted into the contracts. I do recognize the immense value of those other writings but only for the sole-purpose of trying to understand those individuals. Their notes and writings become irrelevant once the contracts are finally signed.

When a case comes to court, the decisions regarding the case do not hinge on the notes about what one party may or may not have been intended to be part of the contract. The final decision tends to result from the actual text of the contract. It is not what you thought you were signing but that which you actually signed that governs the terms of the contract.

The “contracts” referred to above are those of the 1776 Founding Charter for the United States of America; the first Constitution for the United States of America, which carried the title of the 1778 Articles of Confederation, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and the 1787/1790 Constitution for the United States of America with its Amendments.

When a person tries to obtain a full and proper understanding of those contracts, they usually fail by either not doing enough research or by doing too much of it.

A person does too little research when they do not actually read the contract documents for themselves and rely solely on the opinions of others, with whom the researcher either misplaced their trust. With respect to this fault, the person mistakenly relies on the opinions of the very people entrusted with upholding, defending, and preserving the intent of those documents for “interpreting” them. A better example is much the same as parents who write the rules for the children to follow, and then the parents ask the children the meaning and intent of those rules.

After you quit laughing, I will explain throughout the remainder of this critique of Mark’s book.

Too much research occurs when the person tends toward studying the people who created, approved, and signed the documents. In studying the opinions of others, that is exactly what you get: Their opinions. No matter how educated or slanted those opinions, they are no substitute for the actual source: The documents themselves.

Reviewing the notes written before the signed contract tends to yield the concerns and desires of that person and/or group of people who the person represents. Reviewing writings after the signed contract then tend toward ill-will or “sour-grapes” for not having obtaining a desired result, as well as exaggerated boasting from the people who more-so got what they sought.

The question that the researcher –seeker of the truth- must ask themselves is: How can I best tell if there is a hidden agenda or not when reviewing other people’s opinions?

The best tell (which is an appropriate poker term) in determining whether the source of the opinions is overly boasting or has an axe to grind has to do with finding out that resource from which they quote. Do they quote from other opinions or do they actually quote from the referenced contract or document?

If they quote from a lot of other opinions, it is usually an obvious effort to substantiate their own, most likely mistaken opinion. This type of person is about to butcher or misrepresent the documents about which they write. Quoting from other documents and other decisions is exactly what got our nation and our legal-system into the disastrous mess that it now is in.

If you are asking how much and of what types of research are enough; the best summary is this: If you have a question as to whether or not a specific topic is covered in a particular document, get familiar enough with that document so that you will be able to reference the topic’s approximate location; or why another document with legal standing is used as a resource for properly understanding the prior document.

When it comes to obtaining a proper understanding of the 1787/1790 Constitution for the United States of America, there are only three documents from which to study. In reverse order, but not necessarily in order of importance, they are: The 1783 Treaty of Paris; the 1778 Articles of Confederation; and the 1776 Founding Charter for the United States of America. Beyond those documents there is nothing else that can honestly help you understand government in and for the United States of America; because there was no United States of America prior to 1776.

There you have it, my foundation for the following comments about Mark Levin’s book, Liberty and Tyranny.


What follows are the details with respect to some of the flaws in some of Mark’s opinions and conclusions as they relate to the fundamental truths that he explores.

Mark begins his book with this sentence, in Chapter 1, On Liberty and Tyranny, Page 1: 

There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism.”


Already, I can tell that Mark and I are going to disagree on much more. With that, please allow me to take the pieces of this puzzle apart and put them back together as I explain the process.

Scientific formulae tend to result from comparative observations that seek out repetitive events, given specific criteria. It is the analysis of the comparative observations that yield the mathematical formulae. Basically, science and math are permanently joined.

With “defines conservatism”, Mark introduces a different aspect of both scientific and mathematical formulae; words. In order to properly understand the meaning of a word; words possess definitions that are much longer and more detailed than the words themselves.

The definitions for the words help us to better understand the words. The words help us to better understand the mathematical and scientific formulae. This process is not a one-way street. It is cyclic. The process can begin at any point, whether word, definition, science, or math.

In order for “Conservatism” to obtain the definitions of: 1. reluctance to accept change; unwillingness or slowness to accept change or new ideas: 2. right-wing political viewpoint; a political philosophy based on the tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change to preserve the status quo: 3. desire to preserve current societal structure; an ideology that views the existing form of society as worthy of preservation:[defined by Encarta Dictionary (North America)] there must exists some scientific observation that mathematically quantifies the definitions for the word “Conservatism”. Otherwise, the word ceases to retain the meanings clarified by its definitions.

Definitions are the scientific and mathematical formulae that define words. Without language and words, both the scientific and mathematical observations and formulae become somewhat meaningless.

Definitions are to words what mathematical formulae are to scientific observations. Each respectively clarifies the others.


Page 3, Paragraph 4, Marks writes: 

In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract or faceless member of some group... He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.”


When we take that quote along with the line connected to the previous paragraph on the same page where Mark wrote in reference to the Founders, the Conservatives, and Adam Smith; 

Recognizes in society a harmony of interests... and rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human existence and collective reasoning that promote the betterment of the individual and society.”


Both sentences seem to sound good. Human history proves a somewhat contrary story which tends toward putting those statements at odds with each other.

---> “He rejects relativism that blurs the lines...”

---> “The rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human existence and collective reasoning...”

I’ll bet that you already see the difference.

Cooperation and collective reasoning demands a specific relativism that does in fact blur the lines. Otherwise it is not cooperative or collective. It remains one-sided. It is that one-sidedness that creates the wars between religions and cultures.



Page 4, Last Paragraph, Mark writes: 

They [the Founders] also knew that the rule of the mob would lead to anarchy and, in the end, despotism.”


Page 5, First Paragraph, Mark writes: 

After the war, as the Founders labored to establish a new nation, the defects of the Articles [of Confederation] became increasingly apparent.”


First of all: What constitutes a “mob”?

Is a mob made up of most of a specific group; or just a small part of that group? Is the mob made up of most of the people in the community; or only a small part of the community?

The scientific and mathematical formulation of Mob Rule, defined as: control of government by a gang [a group of people with special interests] that usually do not constitute a consensus of the whole.

Many people who flaunt the benefits of the Federal Republic are the same people who loathe mob-rule.

A mob indicates a small but overly vocal group, whether or not they are representative of the whole. Such also fits the definition for a minority Republic where many times less than 1% (as 1% of 300,000,000 is 3,000,000) of the group’s population (whether representative or not) seem to control the government for the group.

Folks, in 1787/1790 our Constitutional Framers instituted Mob-Rule under the guise of a Representative Republic. Our “Representative Republic” does just what they please, even against the protests of the many people they took oath to represent.



Page 5, Paragraph 2, Mark quotes possibly the worst James Madison quote from the Federalist Papers which were published as a debate over the proposed [then new] Constitution with the Anti-Federalist paper’s writers. Mark quotes Madison as having written, 

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”


It becomes painfully clear that many of the people, responsible for either creating or signing the first-four most-important documents of our nation, seemed to understood the documents so little; that, or they were deliberately creating debate as a way by which to stimulate public input for resolving some of their concerns.

Our nation’s Founding Charter never intended for government to control itself:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed...”


At this point, from the Founding Charter, it already addressed the “who” of Madison’s “you must first”.

The Founding Charter continues with:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute ne Government...”


At this point the Founding Charter addresses Madison’s concerns about who is to do what when the government abuses and/or usurps the powers granted to it by the Governed. The Founding Charter makes no reference to a “self-correcting” government, to which Madison mentions.

The 1787/1790 Constitution addresses the “Self-correcting” concern Madison initiates: Article VI, Section 3, binds government officials with an oath to support the Constitution. Some of that oath requires other branches to check (stop) the abuses and/or usurpations of powers initiated by the officials in the other branches or from within their own Branch. For instance: Judges can be removed for “bad behavior”. Justice Marshal usurping powers not granted to the Judicial Branch by the Constitution certainly qualifies as Bad Behavior: Yet, the Executive and Legislative branches of 1803 failed to act in accord to their Oaths of Office and put a stop to the Court’s action.

In the 1860’s Lincoln’s abuse of the Executive Order, by creating Executive Orders and enforcing them on the citizens as though they magically obtained the power and force of a law constitutes an abuse of power not curtailed by either the Courts or by Congress.

The Legislative Branch is not innocent in the abuses and usurpation departments either. All legislative offices in the United States of America, inclusive of all political subdivisions, are supposed to be Fully Representative –in that they act in accord with the will of the people. Presently Congress passes laws that they have not even read; which is paramount to Treason in the highest degree. What with all three branches abusing and usurping powers it is time for all political powers to return to the people at large for our proper exercise and to establish a new form of government.

Having conversed with many self-declared patriots, not a single one of them knew where to find a copy of the Founding Charter for the United States of America. Although they admit to having read the Declaration of Independence, they never heard of the Founding Charter for the United States of America. The documents are one-in-the-same. It is this lack of proper knowledge that keeps the people in ignorance with respect to their right and their duty to alter, abolish, and throw off corrupted Forms of Government and to institute new Forms.

Mark Levin, in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 5, has not done much homework. Mark wrote: 

For much of American history, the balance between governmental authority and individual liberty was understood and accepted. Federal power was confined to that which was specifically enumerated in the Constitution and no more.”


The first and most widely sited and accepted usurpation of power by the Federal Government occurred in 1803 with Justice Marshall usurping the power of Judicial Review, to strike down parts of the Constitution or other laws that the Court “thought” might be unconstitutional. Even Marshall admitted that the Constitution did not specifically grant the Power. Amendment 10 was ratified in 1791, which makes it perfectly clear that, 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”


All powers exercised, that were not first granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are usurped and are one of the identifying marks the define a tyranny in the making.

The Constitution, at the time of Marshall, was only 13 years old (1803-1790 when RI signed the ratification of the Constitution). The time-span from the 1778 Articles of Confederation to the 1787/1790 Constitution for the United States of America was merely 9-12 years, depending on how a person calculates the dates. Keep in mind, the 1778 Articles of Confederation served our Nation quite well in defeating the then World-Power of Great Britain. The Articles also had short term-limits on Congress.

Many people will, deliberately or not, try to convince us that the 1787/1790 Constitution was required to strengthen the Federal Government so that it could better protect the Nation, when in fact the new Constitution, in 1787/1790 gave the Congress what has evolved into an oppressive power of taxation.



Chapter 3 On Faith and the Founding, Page 24, Paragraph 3, Mark writes:

Reason itself informs man of its own limitations and, in doing so, directs him to the discovery of a force greater than himself –a supernatural force responsible for the origins of not only human existence but all existence, and which itself has always existed and will always exist.”


Page 25, Paragraph 2, Mark adds: 

Man’s more than a physical creature.”


If reason informs us of its own limitations, it also informs us of our ability to get beyond its and our limitations, especially after we obtain better information. Therefore, we are able to reason beyond our previous limits of reason.

For those who think that I contradict myself, imagine that humans “reason” that Earth is flat; which is actually a previous concept that humans reasoned to be truth and for many centuries, killing, as heretics, anyone who opposed such reasoning.

The Flat-Earth concept was eventually set aside by others, who acquired better knowledge. The new reasoning is that Earth is much more spherical than flat.

Another case that proves our ability to successfully reason beyond “reason’s limitations” deals with the subject of whether the Earth is the “Center”, simply because humans inhabit it. Past reasoning suggested that the Earth was the center of our Solar System (and possibly the universe) and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. We have since gained better information and reasoned that the opposite is true.

Soon, people will be able to reason themselves past the “god concept”; as well as past the physical v. spiritual “realities”: As humans of the past have done over and over again with the changing from one god to another.

What most religions fail to recognize is that, if after we die out of the human existence and are supposed to receive an “eternal” anything, we must already possess it; otherwise it is not and never has been and never can be eternal.



Page 26, Paragraph 2, Mark writes, 

It [the ability to reason right and wrong without the supernatural –distinguishing Natural Law from Divine Providence] is not the view adopted by the Founders.”


As for that which is either right or wrong within a society, our Nation’s Founders (via their Representatives) write: 

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed...”


Our Nation’s Founding Generation makes this other statement in our Nation’s second Constitution: 

We the People of the United States of America... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


The Constitution is a grant of powers from us, by us, to our government.

Our Founding Generation tells every generation following them that all that is right or wrong with our Nation is because of the powers that the people grant to or do not restrain from our governments as they relate to the government.

I have to disagree with Mark. The Founding Generation declares that the people are able to reason –based on Natural Law- that which is moral. The rub comes in when the societal body is invaded by people who either oppose or are otherwise contrary to a given “Societal Norm”; just as all hell breaks loose when any given human body is invaded by a deathly virus that the body is not able to control or reject.



Page 26, End of Paragraph 2, Marks states, 

The abandonment of Natural Law is the adoption of tyranny in one form or another, because there is no humane or benevolent alternative to Natural Law.”


Mark has, apparently, not experienced or witnessed many of the Laws of Nature.

Most of Nature can be summed up as –Kill or be killed. –Strength in unity. –Assignations of group leaders. –Invasions from without and convulsions with. –Survival of the fittest. –Do not trust others until they have earned that trust.

Civil societies also exist among animals, insects, and other forms of life. The degree to which they work and for how long they work has a lot to do with all the players involved.

The thought that it is even possible to abandon Natural Law is somewhat ridiculous and counter-logical when you realize that all that exists is natural and anything that those components of Nature do, is also natural.



Page 27, Paragraph 1, Mark states:

Rights that are not conferred on man by man and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man.”


Is that not the idea behind all laws, whether just or unjust? They cut short the rights of certain people because of the desires of certain other people.

Just look at it. Laws cut short or are intended to restrict certain liberties and rights of other people. If man were not intended to restrict the rights of others –to a limited degree- we would not have other laws such as don’t steal and don’t kill. Taking away the liberties from those people who either steal or kill would violate Mark’s opinion because that is exactly what our laws accomplish.

Thus –Societal Laws-

Societal laws tend toward prohibiting specific actions from one person against another and sometimes preventing specific actions against one’s self. That is what used to make the United States so great. The people who wanted to come here actually wanted to become part of the USA. Nearly 100 years ago, all that changed. The people who come here now do not necessarily want to be in the United States; they want to make the United States into the same type of place that they left. This is exactly what the European immigrants (Mark calls settlers) did when they arrived. The Europeans began converting the wilderness, enjoyed by so many other local inhabitants, and began converting it into the cities and towns with which they were most familiar.



Page 28, End of Paragraph 1, Mark states:

It is little understood that the Declaration was a declaration of political and religious liberty.”


That is true and with better than good reason. It is because the Declaration of Independence has nothing at all to do with religious freedom. A person really has to distort the Declaration in order to even get close to “religious liberty” out of the Declaration of Independence. I challenge Mark, or anyone else for that matter, to prove the “religious liberty” claim as it relates to the Declaration of Independence.

Case in point: Not a single grievance listed in our Nation’s Founding Charter, the Declaration of Independence, against King George III or Great Britain even got close to a religious issue.




Page 29, Last Paragraph, Mark wrote:

For the Statist, however, the Declaration is an impediment to his schemes. The Statist cannot abide the existence of Natural Law and man’s discovery of ‘unalienable rights’...”


If the Statist is in fact a person who believes that the government knows what is best for the individual, I will point to the exact words from our Nation’s Founding Charter that binds the Statist:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed...”






Page 32, Paragraph 2, Mark quotes from Thomas G. West, where Mark claims that West said:

“ “[T]he Supreme Court will allow the theology of the Declaration to be taught in the classroom as long as it is understood that it belongs to a ‘world that is dead and gone,’ that is has nothing to do with the world that we live in here and now...” ”


First of all, there is no “theology” of the Declaration. There is no theology to its purpose of founding the united States of America; or of separating the powers of the united States of America from the powers of Great Britain. 



From The Unchristian Roots of the Fourth of July by Michael E. Buckner; in the second paragraph, he writes:

Often, though, supporters of the ‘Christian Nation’ ideology claim that the Declaration of Independence is the document that establishes this country as distinctively Christian. Leaving aside the fact that the Declaration, however important it may be in our history, technically has no legal standing in our government, this is at least superficially a more convincing claim. After all, the Declaration does at least use the word ‘God,’ and uses synonyms thereof three more times later in the Declaration. To be sure, none of these words or phrases (‘Nature's God,’ ‘Creator,’ ‘Supreme Judge of the World,’ ‘Divine Providence’) is specifically Christian -- there are no references to Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity -- but none of them is necessarily incompatible with Christianity either.”


Michael E. Buckner seems to be in agreement with other people, most of who seek to destroy our Nation’s Founding Principle; Michael writes:

Leaving aside the fact that the Declaration, however important it may be in our history, technically has no legal standing in our government, this is at least superficially a more convincing claim.”


With the words “in our government”, Michael is correct. As for the creation of and the alteration of our government the Declaration, as our Founding Charter is as important and perhaps even more so today than years past because our government has completed almost every item on the list that helps us to recognize a tyranny.

The Founding Charter is not written for the government. It is written for the governed.

As for Standing: The Founding Charter for the United States of America identifies the People (the Governed) as the Legal Sovereign Authority over all Government in and for the United States of America.

If people want to understand the true reason why our nation is falling and failing; it has nothing to do with religion or god worship. It has to do with the single fact that the people no longer remember that we are the True Sovereign Power responsible for controlling the powers of our own governments.




On page 37, Paragraph 1, Mark writes:

If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framer’s intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.”


On Page 38, Last two Paragraphs, Mark writes:

The Constitution is the bedrock on which a living, evolving nation was built. It is –and must be –a timeless yet durable foundation that individuals can count on in a changing world. It is not perfect but the Framers made it more perfectible through the amendment process.

The Conservative seeks to divine the Constitution’s meaning from its words and their historical context, including a variety of original sources –records of public debates, diaries, correspondence, notes, etc...”


A person can never properly understand the Constitution or its original purpose if they do not obtain a proper understanding of and about the Founding Charter for the United States of America (the Declaration of Independence).

As Mark points out, the Constitution is intended to be altered via the amendment process. What Mark fails to realize is that the Constitution is also intended to be completely replaced, when it becomes necessary for the People, as the Governed, to do so.

Only the Legal Sovereign Power has the authority to make changes to or to replace the Constitution. This is where our Nation’s Founding Charter comes in.

Our Nation’s Founding Charter names the Governed People as the Legal Sovereign Power over their governments and they also are subject to those governments. Individually, the People are the Governed. Unified, as the Governed, the People are the Legal Sovereign Power.

Mark mistakenly claims that the Constitution is our Nation’s Founding Charter.

Our Nation of Free and Independent States existed before our present 1787/1790 Constitution. Our nation existed before the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war between the united States of America and Great Britain. Our Nation existed before our first Constitution, the 1778 Articles of Confederation.

Our Nation, the United States of America, was founded in 1776 with the document most commonly known as the Declaration of Independence.

It seems that Marks has studied the Declaration of Independence at the School of Expediency. He uses the Declaration to improperly advance his religious agenda; while completely ignoring the continued use and importance of the document as our Nation’s True Founding Charter, which was created by the people of 1776 and intended for the full use by the present and all future generations.

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution for the United States of America are both constitutions for the same nation. The second replaced the first. Both identify and organize two different Forms of Government that the Declaration speaks about the rights and duty of the Governed to alter, abolish, and/or throw off. Neither of those documents form or Found our Nation or its foundation. They both are the framework for our Form(s) of government, not its foundation.

The constitutions are not for the people. The people create the Constitutions for their government officials, as Job Description Sheets that outline the qualification for the job, oath of the job, duties of the job, and powers granted to the office sought so that the successful applicant might be able to carry out those duties.

The only purpose that the Constitution serves the People is as a reminder, to more easily recognize when their government officials begin to work toward a tyranny by usurping powers that the people have not specifically granted to the office and when those officials begin to abuse or neglect the powers that the people have granted to a particular office.

Mark speaks of the “Conservative seeks to divine the Constitution’s meaning”.

Where Mark fails in obtaining the proper meaning of the Constitution is that he does not actually list any of the original sources, which would be the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Mark, instead of using those documents, lists what amounts to useless research; except when that information helps to better understanding the individuals who helped create the documents.

If you want to gain a propoer understanding of the Founding Charter for the united States of America and for the Constitution for the United States of America you need to actually study the documents with a mind to understand them; and not merely see what others have taught about them.

If the Constitution need repeated and frequent “interpretation” by government officials; we the people need to either elect literate people into office, or we need to rewrite the document to reflect a more modern language. The Constitution does not, nor should it ever grant to government officials the power to “interpret” the Constitution –the rules that govern their very offices.

Only very foolish people would ever grant to their government the power to “interpret” or to amend the very document designed to control the powers of those government offices. It would be the same as if a parent wrote a rulebook to govern the office of the child as that office relates to the family cookie jar; and then allowing the child the power to “interpret” or amend your rules as the child considers proper.

Do you see and understand the pure foolishness of allowing the entity that the rules were intended to control to also be the ones who “interpret” or alter those rules?



Page 54, Paragraph 2, Mark discusses the ills of Amendment 17, asking the question:

Does anyone believe that States would have originally ratified the Constitution had they known this would be their fate?”


The “This” that Mark refers to is:

It is not enough that the federal government exercises authority reserved to the states, but it also blackmails the states to implement its policies by threatening to deny them ‘their fair share’ of federal tax dollars should they object. So complete is the federal government’s authority over the states that it heavily regulated and even monitors them to ensure their compliance with federal dictates.”


Yes Mark, I honestly believe they would have and that they did. That is why they put in Article V. precisely the way they worded it. Absolutely no Branch or Office of the Federal Government has any power to amend the Constitution –all that power rests first with ¾ of the States’ Legislatures; and if they fail to properly amend the Federal Constitution, the power to amend the federal Constitution falls back into the hands of the People who ordained and established it in the first place.

The reason that the Federal Government has acquired so much unjust power is because the elected people in the States’ Legislatures have grown to believe all of the Chicken Little cries about evils of Constitutional Conventions. It becomes painfully obvious that those who fear Constitutional Conventions either fail to understand it or simply refuse to do so.

The stumbling block that fells almost every false patriot is the fact that they no longer understand the concept of Legal Sovereign Power as it relates to all governments within and for the United States of America. If they did possess that information we would have had a dozen or more Constitutional Conventions; including one immediately after Marshall usurped the power of “Judicial Review” for the Courts for them to also unjustly use and abuse later. Another instance would have been Lincoln’s abuse of the “Executive Order” where he began using them as if they magically obtained some power of Honest Legislative Authority; when the first several words of Article I. Section 1 proves contrary with these words: 

All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States....”


Amendment 10 repeats this very idea when it states: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


Does all the blame for an increasingly abusive Federal Government fall on the States alone? No.

Who is responsible for putting those State officials into office?

Only a true Sovereign Power has the authority to seat and/or unseat government officials.

So we return to the sovereignty question once again. The People –the Governed, in a unified effort are the True Sovereign Power that can physically remove any member of their respective State’s government. The only offices that require cross-State Lines cooperation for the removal are those of the Office of President and of the United States Supreme Court Justices. Members of Congress can only be removed by the Respective State’s People who elected a specific member into office.




Mark Levin also fails on the issue of slavery in the United States of America.

Page 58, Paragraph 2, Mark wrote:

The Constitution’s ratification by the southern states would ultimately mark the beginning of the end of slavery –coming to fruition with their defeat in the Civil War and the subsequent adoption by Congress and the states of the Thirteenth (formally abolishing slavery), and the Fifteenth (prohibiting race as a bar to voting) Amendments to the Constitution.”


That particular quote from Mark reveals how even he, as a Constitutional Lawyer, fails to properly understand –mostly from failure to read- the Constitution from which he quotes.

If we understand that Mark uses the word “formally”, as used in the above quote, to mean “officially, legally, or lawfully” we find the truth on the slavery issue and involuntary servitude by actually reading Amendment 13, Section 1, which states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”


Mark is not alone in this selective reading problem. The ACLU is another prime example, as they often quote Amendment 13 by rewriting the Amendment, leaving out this set of words –except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

From time to time, I think all of suffer from the selective reading disease. Selectively (whether reading or hearing) neglecting parts has caused the repeated side-effect of foot in mouth complications in my own life.

Though most people eventually clarify their position that human owning human slavery is abolished by Amendment 13, to which I agree: Amendment 13 actually makes slavery and involuntary servitude legal in the United States and Territories for sole purpose to punish criminal actions, but the penalty is only legal IF the person was duly convicted. Duly convicted includes as a minimum, the following to the letter Amendments 4, 5, and/or 6.

Amendment 4 requires a proper search warrant.

Amendment 5 deals with self-incrimination as well as procedures for capital or otherwise infamous crimes.

Amendment 6 deals with “All criminal prosecutions” no matter how minor or major the crime committed. It also details the only right that the People have completely forfeited. That right is the right to waive the trial by jury. Yet, almost every court in the United States, at all levels of government, violates Amendment 6.

When Mark wrote,

The subsequent adoption by Congress and the states of the Thirteenth...”


It is a clear indication that he also fails to understand the proper enactment of Constitutional Amendment, to which Congress possess no honorable power. Congress, as part of the Federal Government, is obligated to work within the grant or restrictions of powers named in the Constitution as those powers relate to the Federal Goernment.




Page 59, Last Paragraph, Mark conducts a comparative of “The Conservative” v. “The Statist”. I quote the entire paragraph for effect and clarity:

The Conservative acknowledges that there are occasions when it is difficult to discern the legitimate and preferred demarcation between the different parts and levels of government. But unlike the Statist, he earnestly endeavors to find them. For example, he accepts today, as certain Conservatives may not have yesterday, that the civil rights acts of the 1960s, while excessive in their application in some respects (such as imposing overly broad speech and behavior codes on universities, secular goals on religious institutions, and a wide range of employment and housing restrictions, which ultimately embrace an authoritarian approach that threatens civil liberties), were the proper exercise of federal statutory authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to address intransigent state racism against African-Americans. For the Statist, however, the advantage of a federal government monopoly without effective challenge from a diversity of states or their citizens is obvious: It is a pathway to his precious Utopia where, in the end, all are enslaved in one form or another.”


What Marks has described is what happens when the rights of individuals conflict. Mark also has defeated his own previous position of “mobility”, in that the United States is supposed to be of such diversity that if a person does not like one area, for whatever reason, they may leave it and go to another friendlier area.

In the above quoted argument, Mark has become the Statist he spends a lot of time arguing against. Here, Mark encourages federal invasions on the private rights of businesses, landlords, religions, and schools where the owners thereof also possess their own individual rights to provide service to whomever and for whatever reason they desire, as well as to refuse the same service for the same reasons.

Mark fails to understand the proper role of the Constitution, which is to grant to government specific powers. If those powers are not granted those powers do not honorably exist –even if it serves Mark’s own “Statist” state of mind.

The only purpose for constitutions is to control government powers –not to directly regulate the actions of the people. Yes, the constitution allows for the means for the government to properly pass laws that do regulate and even prohibit certain actions by some individuals against others (such as killing and stealing). All of the Constitution’s Amendments regarding race, age, sex, and culture equal protection under the law are strictly confined to controlling government powers, not the rights of other individual to conduct their lives and their businesses as they see fit. The Law of Supply and Demand solves the individual, school, and business end of the equation.

No federal or state laws can honorably force a homeowner to rent or to sell to anyone with whom they do not wish to conduct such business. When a government forces such actions, the government entity violates Amendment 14’s equal protection under the law by favoring the rights of one person over the rights of another person.

The rights of one person to rent from or to buy from another, who also has rights of their own to rent to or to sell to another: Sometimes, for whatever the reasons, the rights of these two individuals will conflict. When that conflict occurs, someone is not going to leave happy –and yes, that is part of Life. If the government properly performs its duty, both will leave with a better understanding of each other’s rights and the limitations on government powers that prohibit it from forcing one person’s rights into another person’s life. Sometimes, it may seem that the government favors the one over the other; other times the one who felt less favored may seem to get preferential treatment from the government the next time in another situation: When in both cases both received equal protection under the law.

Solution: The Government’s equal protection goes this way; the government protects the right of the one person seeking to rent or buy by restricting them to renting or buying from people who wish to rent to or to sell to them. On the other hand, the government protects the rights of the seller by making certain that they rent or sell only to people who want to rent or buy from them. In this way, Mark’s “mobility” and our Nation’s people’s liberties are maintained.

When the government protects the rights of each of the two people, above described, it also protects the rights of all others who may not want to rent from or buy from another who tries to force that person to buy or rent from them; as well as it also protects the ownership rights of individuals who may not want to rent or sell to a person who desires to rent or buy from a reluctant person because of moral, cultural, other personality reasons.

Mark, you previously made the comment that the Statist is subtle in their invasions. Congratulations: Here’s your sign –Statist.




Mark writes about a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA where, in a 5 to 4 majority the Supreme Court:

So, five justices, trained not as scientists but lawyers, determined that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, which the government must regulate77. Just like that, the Enviro-Statist position is now law.”


I am thoroughly shocked, though not at all surprised that such a wrong assumption would come from a “Constitutional Lawyer”; that simply because the Courts say the case is “So” that it automatically becomes Law. Not one single place does the Constitution grant to the Courts any Legislative Power. In fact, had Mark actually read Article I, Section1, of the Constitution, it specifically grants to Congress ALL legislative powers; none for the Executive and none for the Judicial.

For Mark to claim that such was accomplished over the objections of the Executive and without the support of the Legislative Branch; Mark is again incorrect. There is a nice little Checks and Balance clause written into the Constitution, for anyone who actually reads the document. In Article III, Section 1, it states: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior....” Am I the only person who considers a violation of the powers granted by the Constitution to a specific Branch or Office of Government as Bad Behavior? It is an impeachable offense.

When those 5 of the 9 passed that ruling, the other 4 should have petition Congress for their immediate removal for usurping legislative powers not granted to the Courts; the Congress should have moved to remove those 5 of the nine for Constitutional Violations; and/or the President should have petitioned the Congress to remove the 5 of the 9 for Constitutional Violations.

The question remains: Why did they not act in accord to the Constitution?

The sad truth is that none of them who should have acted to rectify the situation never read the Constitution that they took Oath to uphold and defend; or they have deliberately ignored their duties: Either of which is an impeachable offense.




Page 189-190, Last-First Paragraph, Mark begins discussing terrorism where he states: 

For example, in the war on terrorism, the United States has been accused by various, self-described human rights groups, international bureaucrats, among others, of using torture in the interrogation and detentions of al-Qaeda terrorist. These critics have attacked critically important, albeit rarely used, methodologies for securing intelligence and neutralizing the enemy as violations of terrorist’s human rights –including waterboarding, which simulates drowning.”


I wonder how many days of waterboarding that Mark Levin could endure while continuing to proclaim that he did not assassinate both Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy; even though he “knows” that waterboarding is “simulated drowning”.

Terrorists also know that waterboarding is “simulated drowning”, that it is not intended to kill them.

An entirely new mindset turns on when you become the subject of such actions, as the people “drowning” you make it painfully clear that the procedure will continue until you “confess” to what the administrators want to hear.

Personally, having never met Mark Levin, I give him a maximum of 7 days of intensive “simulated drowning” before he confesses to having assassinated both Lincoln and Kennedy. Would his confession actually solve the long term questions that still haunt each assassination case? I think not.

When most prisoners come to believe that there is no end in sight of their “simulated” torture, whether drowning or any other form, death becomes desirable over the torture. Lying becomes preferable to death.

Mark’s, according to his book-cover photo, looks as though he might enjoy a few rounds of “simulated” electrocution, “simulated” Russian Roulette, “simulated” starvation, and/or “simulated” dehydration. The point is: Mark does not mentally grasp the concept of simulation.

For comparison and for clarity, we compare the real act of simulated flight with that of the real act of what Mark refers to as simulated torture.

With simulated flight, the pilot (whether licensed or not) enters what appears to be a real aircraft cockpit, because it is. The simulated cockpit usually is not attached to any of the other aircraft components but is instead connected to an elaborate system of computers and hydraulic cylinders that simulate actual flight scenarios.

For the example that Mark provides, waterboarding, which he claims is simulated drowning.

Let’s look into actual drowning first. First, we look at the accidental drowning of a swimmer who ever-estimates his abilities and has gone beyond the point of safe return. Although the swimmer deliberately went about the activities that brought about the drowning, the drowning was not planned.

The swimmer, after becoming unable to keep them afloat, begins to bob under water and gradually takes water into their lungs, which causes a shortness of breath; because the lungs cannot take in the desired air for breathing. If the person is unable to clear the water from their lungs, usually a level of panic increases and the person tends to take in even more water to eventually fill their lungs. Cause of death –drowning.

Waterboarding, by definition, is drowning by deliberate actions. The person causing the drowning uses real water (or other liquid) and by some manner causes the person subject to the drowning to eventually ingest that fluid into their lungs. After all, when pouring large quantities of a continuous flow of water over a person’s face they can drink but only so much water before they have to take a breath, breathing in some of that water into their lungs –causing the initial stages of actual drowning. If the person or person causing the drowning do not revive the subject, the official cause of death states –Drowning. NOT –Simulated Drowning.

In order for waterboarding to truly be simulated drowning, the subject cannot be a living being. With any living being the action becomes a real drowning act, though it may also include a number of actual resuscitations. If waterboarding truly were simulated drowning, than only simulated resuscitation would be required.

Simulated” electrocution is the same as simulated drowning.


Simulated” torture via any means is still torture, where it is not allowing the prisoner to eat or drink, or in some other form.




Page 191, Last Paragraph, Mark states:

The war against terrorism requires infiltration, interception, detention, and interrogation, all of which are aimed at preventing another catastrophic attack...”


That’s strange; Mark forgot to add “simulated” torture to his list.

As Mark presented his list, without the torture, I fully agree with him, so long as such actions do not violate the rights of the citizens beyond that which the Constitution specifically allows for government interference.

--Infiltration: The good-guys must legally get into the network of the bad-guys without actually violating any laws; otherwise the good-guy, who is pretending to be a bad-guy, actually becomes one of the bad-guys.

Infiltration is exactly the method used by our Nation’s enemies to start destroying the United States of America from within.

--Interception: The good-guy must legally intercept communication between the bad-guys in order to learn of the details of their plots. Then, the good-guys must take possession of bad-guys and put them out of commission, as per Amendment 13, and work both ends of the bad-guy chain by taking out the upper and lower echelons of the bad-guy network. Without Amendment 13 penalties, the bad-guys have nothing to lose because they can effectively administer their activities from behind bars.

--Detention: The good-guy must legally obtain possession of the bad-guy. The actual How is dictated by Amendment 4, and for How Long depends on the law and the crime. Detention for any other purpose than awaiting an Amendment 6 trial; except when in an actual war and not a “simulated” war on terror, education, drugs, etc.; all are crimes. Yes. Terrorism is a crime; unless an actual Country/Government sanctions the actions.

--Interrogation: The good-guy questions the bad-guy, not through torture or “simulated” torture.

Torture only yields the results that the tortured person believes that their torturer wants. More often than not, the information gained from torture is not reliable and is fabricated by the subject in an attempt to please their torturers.




Page 191, Last Paragraph, Mark writes:

The post-9/11 mix of laws and policies instituted by President George W. Bush, which were intended to protect American society from mortal threats, did, in fact, succeed in securing the American people’s unalienable rights within the framework of the Constitution.”


Granted, I have not flown since about 1986 or so; but to have unconstitutional government agencies perform unwarranted searches and seizures against citizens who travel is not my idea of having my right to privacy or having the right to be secure in my person or possessions, which the Constitution permits the government to interfere with, provided that the government PROPERLY obtain a Constitutionally legal warrant for that search and that seizure.




Page 192, Last Paragraph, is another indication of a pretend Constitutional lawyer who has either never read the constitution or deliberately undermines it; Mr. Levin wrote:

For the Conservative, there is no doubt that the relentless efforts of the Statist to criminalize war –by dragging strategic and operational decisions into the courtroom, where inexpert judicial activists second-guess an elected president and his military and intelligence experts –will make securing the nation against future attacks far more difficult.”


Admittedly, any sane person does not want their nation’s battle plans broadcast in the media before or during execution, for that defeats the purpose of planning. We also do not want our government officials violating the Constitution to accomplish their task either. It usually is not long after the people allow abuses of government power with foreigners before that government turns those abuses against their own people.

Unfortunately, most of our government officials have become untrustworthy and are commonly known for their frequent constitutional violations.

There is nothing about the 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments that require “dragging strategic and operational decisions into the courtroom”. Many subpoenas are issued by a judge after hearing the arguments from the party seeking to search and/or seize property and/or people.



Page 193 A Conservative Manifesto pages 199-205; I simply wonder about how Mark is able to justify his apparent Conservative position as being any better than the Statists he most obviously opposes.

  1. Taxation: Manifesto proposes a “Flat Tax”, without specifying a “flat” dollar amount or a “flat” percentage.

  2. Environment: No argument.

  3. Judges: Manifesto proposes to “Limit the Supreme Court’s judicial-review power”. How about completely abolish it, because it is an unjust power usurped by the courts, and is a legislative power never intended for the Courts. Do you know how utterly asinine it is to give power to your banker to “interpret” how you want your money spent? The same goes for our government and it having the power to “interpret” how We the People want our government to function. We should impeach and/or recall every government official who violates the Constitution; no second chances; no do-overs. In this way we should get a much higher caliber of people seeking government offices. All elected government offices should hold term-limits and the total number of years a person can serve in a particular government office.

  4. The Administrative State: No argument.

  5. Government Education: No argument.

  6. Immigration: No argument.

  7. Entitlements: No argument.

  8. Foreign Policy and Security:

  9. Faith: “God-given unalienable rights”? I would appreciate Mr. Levin pointing out for me that any of our rights are god-given. “Faith provides the moral order that ties one generation to the nest, and without which the civil society cannot survive.” Faith has never been proven to either provide morals or tie generations together. Both the morals and generational unity come from teaching and acceptance of that which is taught, as well as a mutual respect; all of which is a two-way street. Both the younger and the older generations teach and should learn from each other and ultimately accept each other for what they are. Each becomes responsible for the level of trust that the other might have in them.

  10. Conclusion: No argument.

 



[Return to Table of Contents]













The Entrepreneur


Open Letter Remarks by Daniel Kingery about the book TIME TO GET TOUGH Making America #1 Again by Donald Trump; ©2011.

Dear Mr. Donald Trump:

It seems that you seek a presidential candidate “who can get the job done with a workable plan”. On Page 156, last Paragraph, you wrote,

“We must find and elect that leader”.

Yes we must. We also must make that message effectively strong enough for all future politicians as well. Such a message must be delivered long before November 2012. I’m thinking even earlier than July 2012 will be as effective; since it is too late to send that message in 2009.

After having read your book, which is well written, I have notes about questionable material in your book. Mr. Trump, you seem to either not fully understand the position of the President and the powers granted to the office or you have confused the Legislative Power of the Repeal with that of the Executive Power of the Veto.

Overall, you present many impressive ideas, logical and elementary. Compared to the many other candidates or potential candidate in this case, you possess a solid understanding of what it takes to turn our Nation to the better. Though no one agrees with everyone all the time, your book is one of the few Trump productions I like.

Page 21, Sue OPEC, you wrote,

“The way to fix this is to make sure that Congress passes and the President signs the ‘No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act’ (NOPEC) (S.394), which will amend the Sherman Antitrust Act and make it illegal for any foreign governments to act collectively to limit production or set prices...”

Although Congress and the President can negotiate trade deals with other countries, they literally possess no power whatsoever to write laws that try to control the commercial acts of those countries. The popular misconception that you seem to follow is that of the United States being the world monitor of good business practice, world peace-keeper, and world humanitarian. We are none of those and we are not the monitor of honorable business practices by foreign States or Nation States.

If a nation or nations practice price-fixing and –gouging, as a nation we are in no way obligated to trade with those nations. Otherwise, we do not possess any honorable power to dictate to them how they should manage the affairs of their country.

 

Page 71, Paragraph 2, end,

“Bringing home the hundreds of billions of dollars that the petro thugs at OPEC and our enemy China steal from us every single year...”

Give me a break Donald, you shrewd negotiator. What proud negotiator faults the team who gets the best deal for their people or company? Do you mean to tell me that if you saw an original da Vinci in someone’s yard or garage sale with a $50.00 tag on it, knowing that it is worth far more, that you would not scoop it up before your heart beat again?

Heck, if it is a good deal to pay full price why risk losing the deal negotiating the price down so that someone else might even offer closer to true market value?

The China and OPEC negotiators were having a yard sale with extremely inflated prices and saw their sucker coming from the United States. They saw a person coming who does not respect the powerful tool called money. The United Stated buyer went shopping with other people’s money and without any penalty if mismanaged and with no respect for those people themselves.

I do not fault even an “enemy” for taking the advantage in a negotiation when it is offered to them.

As for China or Russia or any other nation that is not an ally; I do not consider anyone an enemy unless they physically attack. Simply because they out negotiate me does not make them an enemy. If we negotiate for the same item, that only makes us opponents (much the same as two opposing sports teams) not enemies.

Just because their Form of Government differs from ours does not make them an enemy: If it works for them? Great.

Page 83, Paragraph 1, bottom,

“Kick the community organizer out of office...”

Page 134, Last line,

“2012 can’t come soon enough.”

The two quotes above make me question your working knowledge of the system of government established by our Nation’s Original Founders in 1776.

Our founders never intended for us to leave corrupt and especially boarder-line treasonous politicians in office one day longer than it takes the people to say “Your Fired!” with a RECALL election.

Allowing politicians to stay in office, when their every action works to destroy the political jurisdiction that they serve is pure foolishness on the part of the voters who should RECALL the politician as soon as possible and not REWARD them with the benefit of claiming that they did a good job. A good job is exactly what the politician can rightly claim if they are not recalled.

Mr. Trump, you may very well understand the firing process in business, you certainly understand it on your show; but you seriously lack the same level of understanding when it comes to the process of actually firing politicians.

I expect that if you hired a contractor who bid a job to take four years to complete and the contractor began taking all sorts of illegal shortcuts; you would not allow that contractor to continue working on the project one more day, let alone the remainder of the contract. If you would, it seems that most of your business successes were pure luck because that is exactly what you advise us people to do –wait for Obama’s four-year contract to expire.

Page 131, Paragraph 1,

“Even if we elect a real president who will get tough and repeal Obamacare....”

For a man who considers seeking the Office of President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, you do not correctly understand what powers were granted to which government branches. The President has absolutely no LEGISLATIVE Powers, those belong solely to Congress. The repeal power is purely legislative, not executive.

The only real check that the President has on the Legislative Power of Congress is that of the Veto. The President does not even sign bills into law; it only appears that way. The act is merely ceremonial. If the president does not veto a bill and he does not sign it and just leaves it sit on his desk, the bill automatically becomes a law in 10 days.

Page 139, Paragraph 1, Last line, Though you did not make this statement, it is in your book and needs to be properly addressed. According to you, Corey Steward, chairman of the Prince William County board of Supervisors said, in reference to the feds releasing an illegal immigrant who killed a nun,

“Blood is on the hands of Congress for not properly funding immigration enforcement.”

How wrong.

I’m surprised that you did not actually clarify or rebut the statement; especially if you really own any of the enterprises with your name on them. Here is where we get back to firing the incompetent people in government.

With a business example: If you had an employee in your organization that flagrantly violates your rules where people died and you knew about it and did not fire that person and replace them, whose fault is it really if that person keeps causing harm to others while in your employ?

After the first incident and maybe (only maybe) a second time the fault rests solely with the person who does the wrong. After that, and especially when it comes to the boss’ attention, the boss also shares in the guilt by not having removed the person and possibly taken legal action against them.

In the United States, you must ask yourself: Who owns and is responsible for firing corrupt and culpable politicians?

ANY response other than the body of voters who the politician serves is just plain wrong.

At this point in time, all of the BLOOD lands on the hands of the voters for leaving those politicians in office for their entire term to continue those injustices.

Page 140, Paragraph last, you talk about your interpretation of Amendment 14 where the amendment allows for anchor-babies to become citizens by merely being born on United States soil. You claim that allowing for anchor-babies was not the intent of the Amendment. You most likely are absolutely correct but that is not what the amendment states. The word are the ONLY tool by which we have to run and control our government. If a government official wishes to challenge the meaning of the words and the written intent, they must seek clarification via amendments, not random reasoning that tends to change from person to person and from administration to administration.

If the people want the amendment to read more clearly and to prohibit anchor-baby citizenship, the people and only the people via their State Legislatures or in Constitutional Conventions have the power to clarify Amendment 14 with another Amendment.

A lot of the trouble we, as a nation get into is when politicians begin to interpret the constitution. The “funny” but sadness of it is, there is no interpretation clause in the constitution that allows any government official to interpret the constitution.

Mr. Trump, as stated earlier, you have many sound ideas. However, as a businessman you still have no clue as to how our government was designed to function in these united States and for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Sincerely, and with all due Respect,

Daniel Kingery


Comment on The Entrepreneur BLOG


[Return to Table of Contents]






 





The Law Professor





Had it not been for my parents and their instruction, I might have trusted what every teacher or government official told me. I may never have questioned their position. After all, they are supposed to know their job better than I. Am I Right?

In his book; The Second Constitutional Convention How the AMERICAN People Can Take Back Their Government, Chapter Two, The Birth of Article V: Amending the Constitution; Richard E. Labunski claims that the Constitution is the nation's founding charter.

My disagreement with Mr. Labunski rests with that which qualifies as the UNITED STATES Founding Charter. Since the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA existed prior to the 1787 Constitution and before the Articles of Confederation, another document must qualify as the Nation's Founding Charter.

When the Representatives for the Founding Generation, in General Congress Assembled, signed the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was born. Their Declaration memorializes the founding of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and establishes the primary principle regarding the formation and control of governments. Their 1776 Declaration is the official UNITED STATES Founding Charter.

If you want to understand the Constitution for the United States of America, you must understand the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That Charter, once successfully defended, allowed our Founders to create a non-British Form of Government that they specified in the Constitution for the United States of America.

In Chapter 2 of his book, Mr. Labunski's claims that the Constitution, Article V: Does not provide to the people a direct path to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. Labunski is correct, but not for the reason he writes in his book.

Few people understand that the Founding Generation established and ordained the 1787 Constitution, with its amendments, so that they and future generations could better control their government. The 1787 Constitution reminds the people about how they might alter or abolish their Constitution. The Constitutional path first appears in the Preamble for the Constitution, which states:

“We the People of the UNITED STATES... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The second place appears in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 9, which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

When we understand that the Declaration of Independence is in fact the true Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that understanding clarifies several other rights that we the people retain, rights to which Amendment 9 of the Constitution refers.

Later, Mr. Labunski presents the idea that a new Constitution (a new form of government) signals the creation of a new nation.

A Constitution, by whatever its name, is the Form of Government to which the UNITED STATES Founding Charter refers. The Articles of Confederation was the first form of government for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA until the 1787 generation replaced it with the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America with its Amendments.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a government corporation, as much as any fast-food chain or department-store chain is a business corporation. Now is a good time to examine this predicament in business corporation terminology. The united States are the political bodies empowered by the People to retain proper control over the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The people within each State control the politics of their respective State. Having said all that, the people ultimately control the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

When the corporate owners of a business agree on the purpose of the corporation, they put pen to paper and create their Business Corporation's Founding Charter. The charter outlines that purpose, defines who the owners are, and it names their business. Then they sign it, or they empower their representatives to sign it, to make it legal. Though the new corporation exists, its founders —its owners– must successfully defend it against all attacks that might prevent its continued operations.

At this point, the Colonies (the government bodies) already exist with an established body of Representatives for those people of the Colonies. The conversion from the British Colonies into the Free States takes on the appearance of a hostile take-over from within the British Empire. The people, with their Representatives to act on their behalf, complete the take-over of those thirteen Colonies.

The united States, our Founding Generation, successfully defeated all political and legal opposition to the UNITED STATES Founding Charter. In doing so, the united States no longer possessed an official FORM OF GOVERNMENT because it abolished all political ties with Great Britain. The Founding Charter states:

“That they [the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA] are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...”

In the business corporation, the owners create a set of By-Laws for the intended successful operation of their business corporation. Those By-Laws outline the duties of the people, whom the owners might elect, to manage the daily affairs of their business corporation. Once the business founders agree on the terms and conditions of the By-Laws that empower their elected officials to accomplish their assigned duties, the owners sign and publish those By-Laws (a business constitution).

The elected officers, who manage the day-to-day operations of the business corporation, are not the owners and they do not control the business corporation. Those elected officials represent the owners and controllers. Those representatives must work within the business By-Laws or suffer the consequences.

Translating back into government terms, the elected Representatives are not the Founders, they represent the Founders. The Representatives neither own nor control the corporate government; they manage the public assets for the people. The elected officials represent the owners. Actively or passively, the citizens of a given generation are the true owners and controllers of corporate government.

The people, the owners, dictate their rules to their government official via the government By-Laws (the Constitution, the FORM OF GOVERNMENT). Once again, I want to stress the importance of reading and understanding the UNITED STATES Founding Charter.

In both the business and government corporations, the By-Laws do not govern the Founders or their posterity. In both the business and government corporations, when the elected managers fail or refuse to work within the confines of the By-Laws-Constitution, the owners retain all rights and duties to create a new Constitution and/or to remove from office every official responsible for the ruin within their respective corporation.

When we the people finally recognize that the ill-named Declaration of Independence is the true UNITED STATES Founding Charter, we realize that we the people retain possession of not only the right to alter, abolish, or throw off our corrupted forms of government; that right also is our duty.

To keep up with the changing times, Mr. Labunski; in Chapter 3 of his book, The Role of Courts in ”Amending” the Constitution; suggests that the courts should possess some power to amend the Constitution.

When I read what he wrote, I nearly exploded. It made me so sick that I ran to the porcelain goddess for relief.

The courts are as much a part of the workings of government as is the Legislative and the Executive Branches. The Courts, as the Judicial Branch, have no more granted authority to amend the Constitution than does the Legislative or Executive Branches.

The quickest way for us to lose our rights is to grant to (or to passively allow) any politician or branch of government the power to amend the By-Laws that govern their own actions.

The people, according to the Preamble for the Constitution, established and ordained the 1787 Constitution. With that, the people made the Constitution the By-Laws under which their government officials must operate. As much as we tend toward worshiping the genius of the Founding Generation along with the 1787 Constitution and its Bill of Rights, we fool only ourselves if we allow our government to alter, amend, or abolish any Constitution that governs political power.

If you think this too harsh, ask yourself this question. What good is any Constitution if politicians, in any branch of government, might change the rules of that Constitution to increase their powers without first obtaining the approval of the people that they represent?

For this translation, let’s get personal. Suppose you hire me to manage your bank accounts, and you give to me a specific set of rules or By-Laws for me to follow as I manage your money. What good are those rules to you if you also allow me to amend your rules whenever I desire, so that I might grant to myself additional powers to rob you of all your riches?

We the People of the united States, through the 1787 By-Laws of the Constitution for the United States of America, did not in the past and do not at present grant to any branch of government or to any politician the power or authority to change the rules provided to them by that Constitution. The UNITED STATES Constitution, Article V, merely allows politicians to recommend or propose amendments to the Constitutional rules. We the people must approve or deny those recommendations as we see fit. If the governed people disapprove of those changes, politicians receive no additional powers or authority. The key element, overlooked by many, is that we the people retain every right and duty to further restrict or to loosen any prior restrictions on government powers that we, as a unified body, may desire.

Repeating for emphasis, enough of the people must unite to approve any change. The 1787 Constitution clarifies enough when it specifies, three-fourths of all the State Legislatures must ratify the proposals. The Federal government possesses no honorable power to alter any part of the Constitution or to forbid to the people their right and their duty to alter, abolish, or to throw off our present form of government and replace it with another that the people consider to be an improvement.

Comment on The Law Professor BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













The Judge





In the book written by a UNITED STATES, Supreme Court Judge, Stephen Breyer, Making Democracy Work, I focus on only one topic; the government power of Judicial Review. This topic appears right up front in his book. After all (someone told me), he is a Judge so he must be right.

Quoting from Making Democracy Work, Part I, Chapter One, Judicial Review: The Democratic Anomaly, the first paragraph, Mr. Breyer writes:

“The Supreme Court can strike down statutes that violate the Constitution as the Court understands it. Where did the Court find this power of judicial review? The Constitution itself says nothing about it.”

Such a statement from a person who is supposed to know better nearly made my other foot slip on that ole banana peel. Before I kicked the bucket, I thought it best to see where Mr. Breyer intended to go with this.

I got to Chapter Two.

Right at the start of Chapter Two, as he doesn't make me wait long, he starts with:

“In 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Court's authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution through judicial tour de force....”

Basically, Mr. Breyer claims that a judicial act grants to the courts some additional authority.

For Mr. Breyer, I direct both him and you to the UNITED STATES Constitution, Amendment 10, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the UNITED STATES by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

For those of you who may not recognize it and for Mr. Breyer who expressly ignores the fact, the UNITED STATES Supreme Court is one of the three branches of the UNITED STATES government that is covered in and by the 1787 Constitution that the governed people created. The governed people retain full responsibility for altering or abolishing that Constitution.

Though the act of Judicial Review is not specifically named in the Constitution for the United States of America, the power to strike-down that which is unconstitutional is granted to all three branches of and all levels of government. This grant is located in the 1787 Constitution, Article 6, Sections 2 and 3, which states:

“Section 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the UNITED STATES which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the UNITED STATES, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“Section 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the UNITED STATES and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”

I'm not getting into the details of the Marbury v. Madison case as those details are not relevant to this topic.

For those politicians and others who might have missed it, did you know that parts of the Constitution itself could be or become unconstitutional? Let me repeat it:

“...Any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

To determine if any part of the Constitution is Contrary to the purpose for the Constitution, the individual must know the TRUE purpose for the Constitution. Hint, you are not likely to find that purpose in the writings from or about any individual or group of the Founding Generation.

The TRUE Purpose for the Constitution for the United States of America is found in the words of the Preamble for the Constitution, which states:

“We the People of the UNITED STATES, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The true length of the Constitution is merely 52 words. All of the rest of the Constitution is how to accomplish those 52 words.



Comment on The Judge BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













The Candidate





Mosheh Thezion, one of the many 2012 UNITED STATES Presidential candidates, on his website, openly expresses another of the problems in our government that stems from improper knowledge about proper political powers and improper thinking about problem-solving. The following information comes from his website, http://www.mosheh.org.

From http://www.mosheh.org/Home.html, his home-page, Mr. Thezion writes:

“Our government has operated under a constant state of emergency since 1933, and during a declared emergency the Constitution is no longer the rule of law for the government, and that the declared emergency of 1933, is still bascially in effect, because the National Emergencies act of 1976, does and did nothing to limit the unlimited executive war powers granted and laws changed and procedures established since 1933. In other words, The Federal government has retained unlimited war powers, since 1933, and regardless of the national emergencies act of 1976, it retains all of those same powers today. Powers, not granted by the Constitution, and as such, the continued use of, is a violation and usurpation of our Constitution and its limits. And more importantly, all the illegal, un-constitutional changes made since 1933, under emergency war powers, have not been reversed.”

Mr. Thezion recognizes and admits that these emergency war powers are not granted by the Constitution and they are illegal. Unfortunately, at http://www.mosheh.org/THE-ISSUES.html he reveals how he intends to accomplish his plans.

From his website:

“I will immediately sign an executive order to officially end ALL declared states of Emergency... end all Federal and Congressional and executive powers granted by any declaration of Emergency in the past or present, and officially, in ABSOLUTELY clear terms, re-instate the U.S. Constitution, as the rule of law.... I will then immediately, sign another Executive order, declaring a New general state of emergency...”

In true politician fashion, Mr. Thezion does the old double-talk. Typically, politicians only tell the people what they want to hear; and then, when elected, they go about their personal agenda, which they did not tell the people.

There is no constitutional extra grant of power to government during times of war. Even the powers of government to house soldiers in private homes are governed by existing laws at the time of the war. Remember, through the 1770's through 1790's the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA just won a war that started because of political abuses. Why would those same people allow their government to obtain powers that the people did not grant to their government via the Constitution?

If you want to know the worst of it, the people tend to vote such a candidate into office because they only hear the candidate tell them that they will uphold the Constitution. Then those voters get all upset because they trusted the words of a politician.



Comment on The Candidate BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













From a Doctor





In his book Rendezvous With the New World Order, By Dr. Adrian H. Krieg, My initial assumptions about the book proved correct. By the time I got through the first 14 pages I got the impression that the book would be about the deteriorating aspects of our political, educational, and even our environment. Much of it is about just those topics. I also thought it might be a pleasant surprise if the author also included, somewhere in his book, a few suggestions about how to improve our worsening condition. Though I do not agree with all of his suggestions, many of them are excellent.

One of the minor disappointing aspects about the book is that it seems to focus a lot of time in the past. This is one of the points where the author and I disagree. For me, the past is merely the path that got us to the point within which we presently find ourselves. Aside from that, we must realize that it is our action today that determine whether we remain here or improve (or possibly worsen) our present condition. It helps to know about the past, so that we do not repeat some of the same mistakes. The only reason our politicians are presently able to ignore the Constitution, it is because We the People, the governed, no longer understand our duty to control our government officials by enforcing the Articles of our Constitution on them.

Throughout his book, the author repeatedly emphasizes the "fact" that much of what we accept as a truth —is not. Perhaps Chapter 13 is the author's unlucky number. At the top of page 96, I quote,

“Let me make some comments to correct now popular misconceptions in 21st century society. 1) America is a Constitutional Republic it is not an has never been a democracy. The variance between these two is like the Gulf of Mexico. In a republic there is a basis of law —the —Constitution and Bill of Rights in our case-, which prescribes our rights as citizens and how interrelate with our government. In a democracy there is mob rule whereby the majority can dictate policy based on the norms of the moment. As Seneca so aptly put it, 'nothing proves the lack of value more than applause of the mob'. No democracy has ever survived because once the electorate understands that they can vote benefits to themselves, the jig is up and the system collapses.”

The author does not clarify what is meant by prescribe or electorate. For this, I go to the dictionary.

Prescribe is defined as —to claim a title or to lay down a rule.

Electorate is —a body of people entitled to vote.

Entitled —to give title to; to give a right or legal title to qualify a person or some thing.

Several discrepancies exist within the author's attempt to correct popular misconceptions.

In our republic, our elected officials discovered the same, that they as well could vote to themselves benefit from the treasury.

In the republic, with a national Congress, it only requires the vote of less than 300 members to grant to themselves a pay raise and other laws that benefit them on departure from office or on reelection that they do not make available to the general public.

With over 100,000,000 voters, in a properly enacted democracy, it would require the vote of over 50,000,000 to accomplish the same task. With this democracy, far fewer of those give-away programs would ever see the light of day. Then, of those that do, only the political jurisdictions that enact them pay for them.

This disagreement may simply be that of misunderstanding the differences between America and that of the Government of the United States. Here, the author declares that,

"America is a Constitutional Republic it is not and has never been a democracy."

In the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 4, Section 4, it states,

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government..."

Such a statement clarifies that only the States have a republic with regard to the Federal government.

As for the people? The people (the governed) enjoy a fully democratic power to control all of their forms of government. This quote comes direct from the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA,

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

The Founding Charter (Declaration of Independence) unmistakeably describes the actions of a democracy when it uses the words "the consent of the governed".

With this statement, "In a Republic there is a basis of law..." the author presumes that such cannot occur within any form of a Democracy.

First of all, the 1787 Constitution creates a Constitutional Republic.

Should the People desire to create a Constitutional Democracy, that Constitution could just as well provide the powers to safeguard our rights.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the author's attempt to correct a misconception is that the author creates his own with this statement,

"The Constitution and Bill of Rights in our case-, which prescribes our rights as citizens and how we interrelate with our government."

As defined earlier, prescribe indicates that the Constitution enumerates the rights that the People possess. It does not. We find specific clarification on this point in Amendment 9, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

When you read each of the amendments in the Constitution, you notice that almost every one is a specific prohibition on political powers as they relate to specific rights. In other instances, the People (via the Constitution) grant extremely limited powers to their government with respect to other rights.

Though the author acknowledges the existence of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the UNIETD STATES OF AMERICA, the author's statement indicates a serious lack of understanding of each document's purpose.

For clarity:

The Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (also known as the Declaration of Independence), sets forth the relationship of the power that the people (the governed) possess in a purely Democratic process as "the Governed" to rightly control their Governments.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as the other Amendments, outlines the specific Powers that the people delegate to their government officials. The People also specifically name certain rights that they either allow to their government officials some limited access or absolutely no access. Most of the allowed government involvement relates to criminal activity. Most of the prohibited or limited government involvement has to do with religion, arms, speech, and voting. All of which have close ties to the Constitution's Preamble in that of establishing justice.

When the People see their government abusing its powers, the people (via their State Legislatures) may amend the Constitution as it relates to those abuses.

The author continues to promote popular misconceptions with this statement about Democracies, "In a democracy there is mob rule whereby the majority can dictate policy based on the norms of the moment.... No democracy has ever survived because once the electorate understands that they can vote benefits to themselves, the jig is up and the system collapses."

How is the author-defined democracy any different than our present republic where all three branches legislate in the lives of the people and grant to themselves powers not granted to them by the Constitution?

In the City where I live, I would rather that 50%+1 vote of the total eligible and registered voters make the decisions than to leave it up to 7 of the 3,000 voters to decide the fate of all the rest of us. The simple reason is that it is far easier and cheaper to buy the majority-vote of 7 than it is to buy the majority-vote of 3,000.

The author's favoritism toward republics over that of democracies is blinded by the popular misconception of the basic most form of a democracy; that of the mere majority of those who show up to vote where as little as 1/2 of 15% of registered voters decide. Should the Author actually consider a Constitutional Democracy where it specifies that no less than 50%+1 of the total voters are required to pass laws and government programs, I think he will like how slowly such gifts to themselves get approved.

My final thought has to do with Chapter 19 where the author seems to present the idea that Individual Freedom is almost nonexistent in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Though it appears accurate, nothing could be further from the truth. All of our freedoms and options remain available to us, especially our most important right —that of our RIGHT and DUTY to control our government and even start over again if needs so dictate.



Comment on From a Doctor BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













From Another Doctor, Candidate, and Congressman





According to Ron Paul's book Defining Liberty, in spite of the fact he also presented many workable ideas, he left me confused as to where he stood on a few points. Does he prefer republics over democracies? Does he prefer the will of the people or government controlled people? Does he really understand the purpose for the Constitution or not? The following are some of my concerns.

From his book, Liberty Defined, Security, Page 258, Paragraph 2,



“Already American Citizens have been victims of the new system that denies ordinary rights guaranteed in the Constitution.”



Ron Paul, as do far too many people, wrongly thinks that the Constitution guarantees to the people certain rights. It does not.

The Constitution, for those who actually read it, specifically grants powers to government and specifically prohibits powers from government. Some of those grants and prohibitions specifically involve a few of the rights that the people already possess. The Constitution does not grant to or deny to the people anything (except the right to waive trial by jury in criminal cases). It is the people who do the granting of and further restricting of government powers.

When the people mistakenly believe that the constitution controls the rights of the people, only the people lose.

From the section Democracy, Page 65, Paragraph 2, Ron Paul states,



“Pure democracy, in which the law is up for grabs based on legislative maneuvering, is the enemy of individual rights, and victimizes the minority... The notion that as long as the consensus of 51 percent agrees, something is morally acceptable... A republic, on the other hand, is a non monarchical system that makes no claim to some how embody the will of the people; it is a system merely for the appointment of leaders and the administration of law.”



Page 69, Paragraph 3



“The result is that pure democracy replaces the supposedly strict restraints placed in the Constitution on the ability of the majority to rule at will. The limitation on the power of the federal government was put there with belief that 'their just powers' were only those consented to by the governed.”



Page 70, Paragraph 4



“Anytime government provides benefits, it must first steal it from someone else who is producing it, thus violating the rights of that individual.”

“Medical care is not a right and should not be provided by government.”



Page 187, paragraph 1



“That everyone has a right to medical care. This is an intellectual error... The supposed right to medical care can only be guaranteed at others expense.”



The Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA refers to only one purpose for government,



“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed...”



In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, our governments possess only one objective; help the people secure their rights. Nothing in the word "secure" suggests that the government actually provide those rights to the individual.

There is nothing in the Founding Charter or the Constitution that grants to government the power to provide any of the rights that the people might claim that they possess. The role of government is that playing the referee, keeping out of the way of the people in obtaining their desired rights as well as making sure that no other person or country unjustly interferes with the exercise of those rights as it pertains to the soil of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Democracies, as with Republics, possess many forms. Agreeably, the most base from of a democracy is undesirable. Create a democracy along the lines of the United States Federal Republic with two houses; then you abolish Congress and let the people legislate with far less cost, greater efficiency, and less corruption.



Comment on From Another Doctor, Candidate, and Congressman BLOG











[Return to Table of Contents]













The Governor





These notes come about from my reading of the book Do I Stand Alone by Jesse Ventura ©2000 Published by Pocket Book, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Jesse start his "vote them out" campaign on Page 18, Paragraph 2 when he writes,

“So if his constituents vote Roger out...”

Mr. Ventura sounds much the same as any ole politician who wants the voter to wrongly believe that they actually vote a person out of office at the end of the official's term. When their term is up, the official is out anyhow. The people may re-elect an official, which puts them back into office, or elect a challenger.

The only way to vote any official out of office is via the Recall Election (which includes impeachments).

Jesse's vote'm out message appears again on Pages 29, 39, 64 and others. His message about waiting for the regular election cycle to supposedly vote an official out is the worst advice an government official might offer to the people who seek better control over their government and their politicians. Why? It rewards those politicians that the people seek to remove from office. Once the politician's term expires, the politician acquires bragging rights to how great a job they did while in office. Then, while waiting for the next regular election the people openly and willingly leave those corrupted politicians in office to continue their destruction.

Waiting for the next regular election —never voted any politician out of office. It only rewards them for their service, if that is what you wish to call it.

Only with Recall Elections are the people really able to vote the bums out.

When the people roll a few political heads before a politician's regular term ends, the people send the strongest message to all other politicians in office. This single action by the people sends the strongest message to the rest of the politicians that the People no longer tolerate government corruption.

In Jesse's next paragraph, he does an excellent job to redeem himself with this statement on Page 29, Paragraph 3,

“I believe our best bet for turning the tide of this nonsense is to go looking for talented people from the private sector, people who are not hanging on the extreme fringes of...” any political party.

When the voters do not find in any of the candidates a government official with strong honest character, it is their responsibility to go out looking for one. In this way the voters need not feel obligated to vote for The Lesser of Evils.



Another of the issues Jesse and I disagree appears on Page 90, Paragraph 3, where Jesse writes,

“The Constitution they wrote is pure genius. It reads more like a mission statement than an instruction manual.”

Then in Paragraph 5, he continues with,

“The Constitution is such an open-ended framework that even in their time it had to be interpreted. Maybe that's why they wrote it that way: because even back then, there was a lot of argument going on over the meaning of lofty principles like 'free speech' and 'due process'...”

To his credit, in a different section, later on Page 92, Paragraph 6, Jesse does mention the Constitution as the ultimate operations manual.

A mission statement? The Preamble, yes.

A rule book? Yes.

An instruction manual? Yes.

After the mission statement of the Preamble, which outlines the purpose for our government; Article 1, Section 1 provides the first rule or instruction. It states that,

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...”

Not the Executive Branch. Not the Judicial Branch. Article 1 even goes so far as to instruct —how to pass those laws. It even details within which House specific Bills must originate. Article 2 details the rules and instructions for the Executive Branch. Article 3 details the rules and instructions for the Judicial Branch.

Even with the close of the first ten amendments, it states in Amendment 10,

“The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

Also, Article 5 details that only the people, through their State Legislatures, possess the power to amend the Constitution.

A mission statement? I suppose Mr. Ventura, while wrestling, would find absolutely no objections if a referee ruled against him and claimed that the Rule Book was merely a mission statement and was subject to the interpretations of the referee. I reckon that Jesse and all other sporting events might find much more chaos in their sports, just as the people find in our government today.

I would like to think that these politicians really have the best interest of the people at heart as they disregard the Constitution.



The Declaration is another area where people get confused. Ventura shows is lack of understanding as well with his statement on Page 92, Paragraph 2 & 3,

“According to the Declaration of Independence, we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are natural rights.

“In order for rights to be meaningful at all, they have to be viewed as a hierarchy, with the right to be alive on top. Your right to breath, for example, takes precedence over my right to smoke. Our rights are constrained to an extent by their effect on others. They're not absolute.”

The Declaration of Independence only names three of our unalienable rights when it uses —that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Among these: indicates only a partial list.

As for which rights take precedence? I might agree much more strongly with Jesse if he added a clarifying statement, such as —venue. My right to smoke trumps your right to breathe if you are in my house, my bar, or my restaurant. Not even the government possesses the authority to tell me that I cannot smoke in the places that I own and the people with whom I wish to serve and associate.



Another of those misunderstanding has to do with whether any government official or branch of government has any People-granted Constitutional powers to amend the Constitution. Page 94, Paragraph 5, Jesse demonstrates poor understanding on the topic.

“One of the few times the government is allowed to limit free speech is when that speech specifically creates a 'clear and present danger'.”

To my knowledge, nowhere in the Constitution does it grant to the government the power to abridge the freedom of speech. —That requires an amendment.

No court ruling has power to amend the Constitution. And a court ruling is what Ventura quotes with the clear and present danger clause.

However, when those speeches violate the rights and livelihood of others, the speaker may be held accountable for those loses. In this way the freedom of speech is not infringed and the rights of the others remain in tact with their power to sue for damages.

More of Jesse's confusion shows through on the topic of free speech on Page 94, Paragraph 5 when he states,

“But if you say, 'Go get an Uzi, find a left-handed, freckled blonde, aim at the heart and pull the trigger,' your days of public oratory are going to be over for a while.”

I have to ask why. No trigger was pulled as yet. So far, no one was harmed. It sounds like the speaker is talking to someone else. So if the actor harms another, the speaker is not accountable for the other person's actions.



Then, on Page 96, Paragraph 3, Jesse writes,

“We have to stay focused on prosecuting the harmful action, not the potential harm.”

In the previous example provided by Jesse about shooting the blonde, there was no harmful action, therefore —no crime. Only the potential for harm, provided of course an Uzi was actually present. Then we have to ask whether or not the speaker pulled the trigger or did someone else? If the speaker did not pull the trigger, the speaker committed no crime. The trigger person commits the crime.

Our government and the people send the worst message possible when they give a harsher sentence to the so-called-mastermind than they do to the ones committing the crime. Why? Because the actors can always point fingers at whomever they wish to blame for their wrong actions. It makes it that much easier for criminals to literally get away with murder by blaming someone else for their wrong actions.

When the actors are held fully accountable for their actions —regardless of their reasons, it is more likely that fewer people will allow themselves to be as easily manipulated by others. Unfortunately, so long as government works with criminals to make it easier for them to blame anyone but themselves, crime will grow big and strong without proper restraints. We already experience the evidence.



Page 99, Paragraph 2, Jesse comments about the First Amendment with this,

“The First Amendment only guarantees your right to speak, and not your right to be financially compensated for your speech, and not your right to speak through whatever medium you choose. The First Amendment only gives us the right to speak our minds.”

The absolute most important counterpoint I offer is this: The Constitution gives to the People absolutely nothing! Not freedom of speech —NOTHING!

What the people did in the Constitution, with the First Amendment, is to prohibit government from abridging our already existing right to speech. Speech is a right that existed for us long before the Constitution.

The Constitution does not even guarantee our right to speak. It prohibits government —specifically Congress from abridging our freedom of speech, among other rights. Far too many people go afoul by incorrectly assuming the Constitution grants to the People any rights what-so-ever. It does not.

Aside from not giving us anything, the Constitution also does not guarantee anything. It does not even guarantee freedom of speech. It does not even guarantee Congress will not abridge our right. It does not even guarantee that if Congress does abridge our right that the people —whom are supposed to enforce the constitutional rules on our government, via the recall, will do so.

The First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of the press: Liable and slander, as well as misrepresenting the truth are actually protected by the first amendment. You have a right to say anything you wish anytime you desire. Congress is not permitted to prevent such speech. As a society, we allow laws that certainly allow for those people who are damaged by such speech to seek compensation via the courts for the damage that such speech causes.

If a party proves liable, slander, and/or misrepresentation the publishing and/or broadcasting entity(ies) as well as the writer, editor, producer, and/or host of the show may be successfully sued for the damages if they refuse to give up their source —especially when the liable, slander, or misrepresentation is proven in court before an impartial jury. If the source is revealed, if the publisher, producer, or reporter failed to check the facts, they remain personally liable as well.



Page 105, Paragraph 2 & 5, Jesse writes,

“In our nation's history, there have been all kinds of passionate debate over what the founding fathers intended by the separation of church and state.

“But the fact that you're constitutionally guaranteed the right to practice religion in any way you wish...”

First: In the Constitution, there is no separation of church and state. The Constitution makes clear that Congress shall make no laws that pertain to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does not prohibit religious leaders or their people from trying to influence the workings of government. Then, as for "free exercise"? Though not detailed, it does not prohibit the taxing of churches in the same manner as the government might tax any other business or person.

Once again the Constitution guarantees —NOTHING!

Jesse seems to be confused about the meaning, as do the Courts. Really, when you read the First Amendment —without trying to interpret it, or worse yet trying to manipulate it, the First Amendment really is very clear in its purpose. When people try to understand any part of the Constitution via the interpretations of others or from the writings of others, including the founders, the student may become easily manipulated into an incorrect position.

On Page 106, Paragraph 2, Jesse seems to indicate confusion about the two parts of Amendment One that deals with religion. There are two distinct clauses. The first, Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion. The second, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.



Jesse writes about Minnesota Care on Page 139, Paragraph 2,

“Minnesota Care. It pays the medical bills for people who can't afford them with money that it raises from a small tax on everybody else's medical bills.”

Sounds simply like a smaller version of Obama Care before Obama Care existed. The redistribution of wealth, though possibly with different recipients is still the redistribution of wealth.

According to what Jesse wrote, Minnesota Care does not charge any person who cannot afford the medical care. Then, those who can afford to pay for their own medical bills also are forced to pay for the medical bills of those who cannot afford them.

Does that really seem fair?

How about this? The government taxes the sale and exchange of funds (from one person to another) for the basic stabilization of medicine for all people. For those who can afford more advanced procedures, whether by themselves or insurances, they get what they can afford.

I see the system, where those who cannot afford to pay receive the same care as those who can afford to pay, much the same as the following example:

For example: The way a person might be able to afford a $300,000 house and a $30,000 car or two of each. I, on the other hand, for whatever reason am not able to afford either the car or the house. To equalize or to make it "fair" the government taxes enough from everyone who can afford them so that everyone who cannot afford them gets a $300,000 dollar house and a $30,000 dollar car from the government.

Answer me this: Whether it be medicine, cars, or homes; what incentive is there for the producers to work when they finally realize that they can obtain the same benefits without all the effort? It benefits producers to quit producing, which ends up producing far fewer productive people in a society; just before it collapses or it turns the people into slaves.



Page 155, Paragraph 4, Jesse demonstrates a lack of understanding far too common these days, which is that of only reading a small section of the constitution and supposing it complete. A fault I try to correct in myself from time to time. Jesse wrote:

“Criminals aren't scared of prison in this country. The Constitution forbids us from really making it into something to fear, because of the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause.”

Jesse refers to Amendment Eight with the cruel and unusual punishment clause. Had he continued to read a few more of those amendments, Amendment Thirteen to be precise, he would find that it clarifies the issue as to what is not cruel or unusual. Jesse later talks about the benefit of community service, so he is close to understanding Amendment Thirteen.

Quoting Amendment Thirteen,

“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their Jurisdiction.

“Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation.”

For those in need of a basic math refresher course, Amendment Eight, enacted in 1791 precedes —that is, it comes before Amendment Thirteen, which was enacted in 1865. Amendment Thirteen simply clarifies what is not included in Amendment Eight.

What Amendment Thirteen accomplishes is the allowance of prison labor —slave labor and involuntary servitude —forced labor. Such forced labor requires two prior conditions be met. The first requirement for forced labor, which, by the way, is suitable in the United States only if it is used as a punishment for crime. The second requirement is that the accused person must have been duly convicted. Other parts of the Constitution specifically detail what constitutes a proper conviction.

What are some of the requirements for duly convicting an accused person?

A crime must have been committed.

There must have been a criminal prosecution which completely rules out the use of plea-bargaining.

That criminal prosecution, without fail, must happen in the presence of an impartial jury. The impartial jury trial is the only right that the Constitution does not allow the accused person to waive. It also forbids the government from denying it to an accused person.

Even before getting to a trial or conviction, if there was a search for evidence, there must have been a proper search. The Constitution, in Amendment Four, details exactly what qualifies as a proper search.

Probable Cause, no matter which illiterate politician claims to the contrary, is not sufficient to allow a search. Probable Cause is only sufficient to issue a Warrant but only so long as a few other criteria are met. Then, it is the warrant that grants permission for the search. Then, if the crime were a capital or otherwise infamous crime, Amendment Five covers Grand Jury requirements, and the fact that government cannot force an accused person to testify against themselves.

One question remains. What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?

Forced labor, according to the Constitution is neither cruel nor unusual, so long as it is used solely for persons duly convicted of a crime. To know what is either cruel or unusual, we must answer two clarifying questions.

What types of labor, which is legal, do free (non incarcerated) persons perform whether for hire or as a volunteer?

How many hours, on average, per day does a free person work that type of labor?

Now that was easy!

With the answers to both those questions we know what is not cruel and what is not unusual labor and we properly addressed Amendment Eight. Now we can properly enforce Amendment Thirteen by forcing the duly convicted to perform those labors. Just because a person does not like to perform a particular type of work does not make that work either cruel or unusual.

I learned that, that which should be obvious usually isn't. With that, I make the following statement. The more severe the crime, the more dangerous should be the type of labor that the government can legally force a duly convicted person to perform. Thus making the punishment more equitably fit the crime. For clarity, if a jury convicts someone of killing, then the labor they perform could justly be that of serving their sentence on the front line in a war to defend our country; or perhaps cleaning up hazardous waste sites; even working natural disaster sites is good use for slave labor who enjoy dangerous situations. If convicted of vandalism, the person might best be put to work repairing vandalized property and/or cleaning up damage after natural disasters.

You get the picture.



Page 156, Paragraph 5, Jesse writes,

“I think we ought to adapt more of the European attitude toward driving: It is a privilege, not a right.”

Remember what I told you earlier in the section Rights vs. Privileges? Here is a politician trying to convince you otherwise.



Page 158, Paragraph 1, Jesse writes,

“Mandatory sentences are awful. They take power away from judges. Judges should be allowed a certain amount of discretion. They should be able to treat each case individually.”

The only part to which I agree is the last sentence. Each case should be treated individually. Not in accord with the unconstitutional and illegally grabbed court power of deciding future cases based on previous cases that might be similar.

Mandating sentences are what is required if criminals are to know what is the actual penalty for their criminal actions. When criminals know that the system is a lottery, there is no deterrent. Without that absolutely known penalty, we arrive at the predicament that Jesse asks about on Page 162.

As for taking this power from judges to discriminate in handing out judgments, the People never granted that power to the courts. Not granted, the people should quickly and firmly remove the use of such power from the hands of government. The people can only enforce the prohibition of that power. The only discretion judges possess is not up to them at all. That is to make certain that the accused receives a fair trial without violating the Constitution as it relates to the rights of an accused.

Then, on Page 162, Paragraph 2, Jesse, as he writes about hate-crimes and the reasons a person commits crime,

“How can we place a value on people's motivations.”

Placing value on a person's motivations is exactly what Jesse does when he wants to grant to judges the power to treat each case individually by allowing judge’s discretion on how severely they might punish persons. The only reason for allowing discretionary punishment is that of taking into account the reason for which a person committed the crime in the first place.

If a person robs to feed a drug habit as opposed to feed their family —do you punish the one more severely than the other?

Whether for hate, for fun, or for necessity; what’s the difference with why a person assaults or kills another? The reasons are irrelevant. With that, mandatory sentences are required if the people are to enjoy any form of justice and tranquility.

As a connected note, on Page 164, Paragraph 3, Jesse talks about school crimes,

“What the hell is going on with our kids today? Whatever it is, we'd better figure it out fast, before more of our sons and daughters end up dead.”

The answer is simple. When the courts make a distinction between the ages of criminals by reducing the severity of the penalty for younger offenders, we increase the likelihood of more of the same types of crime by those younger people.

In most cases, the younger the child, no matter how violent the crime, the records are sealed and they give to the person a clean slate at eighteen years old. Now, to keep their record clean, they recruit other children to do their dirty work for them.

That is the WHY of the issue.



Page 199, Paragraph 1

“Government policy should always be guided by what is ultimately best for the people.”

That is all fine. According to whose standards do we judge what is best for the people? Do we use the politician's determination or are the people to judge concerning what is best for them?


Page 210, Paragraph 4, Jesse writes,

“The Sixteenth Amendment, the one granting government the power to collect taxes on income, should be repealed. To make that happen, we would have to get the votes of 290 members of the House, 67 members of the Senate, and three quarters of all the legislators.”

I gather that Jesse means three quarters of all the states State Legislatures, as he already mentioned what looks like either 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

Based on a number of previous remarks about his book so far and this one equally so, Jesse does not seem qualified to teach lessons on the Constitution. It appears as of the time he wrote his book that he had not yet to actually even read the Constitution, let alone study it. To teach the constitution, the teacher should at the very least read it and not rely solely on the teaching of others.

Why am I so strong on this?

When government officials deliberately distort the Constitutions or mistakenly do so, they serve to incorrectly instruct the people about the Constitution and it purpose.

Have you read Article 5 of the Constitution? Remember this, a repeal is as much an amendment to the Constitution as is any other amendment. The details about how to amend the Constitution appear in Article 5, so I quote,

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

Aside from references to equal suffrage in the last part of Article 5 (not included), there exist only two methods by which Amendments might be proposed. Then, there are only two possible ways by which Amendments might be enacted or ratified.

As for proposing Amendments, the first possible way is that when 2/3 of both Houses of Congress consider certain amendments necessary Congress may propose only those amendments that they consider necessary.

The second method of proposing amendments is when 2/3 of the states call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. This way, the States never remain restricted by a Congress that may eventually fail.

Either Congress or the States may propose amendments. That is clear enough.

What about passing or enacting the amendments?

The proposals shall become part of the Constitution only when ratified by the Legislatures of 3/4 of the several States, or by Conventions in 3/4 of the several States. Those are the only two Modes of Ratification.

Someone might incorrectly assume that the Constitution grants the power to Congress to dictate which one of the only two possible Modes of Ratification that the States may use. Congress does not possess that power. Congress may only recommend which of the two Modes the States may use. It ultimately is up to the States to decide as to which Mode they use.

That is why I claim that at least as of the publishing of his book, Jesse is not qualified to teach the proper meaning of the Constitution.

When the People find a government official who correctly understands the relationship between the United States Founding Charter and the Constitution for the United States of America, and works within the limitations of the Constitution, the People should hold onto the person as long as possible. When the politician is no longer able or willing to work within the Constitution, treat them like all other bad eggs. For all others? Recall them out of office as soon as possible. Do not reward them by procrastinating until the next regular election.



Page 213-214, Section -Tort Reform

Speaking about frivolous law suits and how England has the loser pay for the winner's lawyer, Jesse offers this,

“One way we could get around the problem is to give the judge discretion to waive the fees, if the losing plaintiff or defendant really had a good faith basis for his claim.”

Yes, the argument sounds good. That is as far as it goes. It only sounds good.

Although I like his other ideas of limiting the value of the awards granted, as well as getting lawyers out of government to prevent them from creating and passing laws because it is a conflict of interest; I completely disagree with the above quoted idea.

The Constitution, and for good reason, only allows judges to decide the verdict of cases where the dollar value is $20 or less. See The Constitution, Amendment Seven. Once the value in question exceeds $20 it is out of the hands of the courts to determine whether a judge or jury decides the case. All parties in the suit must agree to have the judge decide the case and not a jury. If one of the parties demands a jury trial, a trial by jury must be held. Someone screamed, "Inflation." I respond, "No."

The reason that inflation does not play into the dollar value is because inflation is not mentioned in Amendment Seven. Inflation, as I understand history, was a known reality even back in 1776.

What about criminal trials?

Article III, Section 2, Last Paragraph, as well as, and especially Amendment 6, the trial of all crimes shall be by an impartial jury. There are absolutely no exceptions. I quote the first part of Amendment 6, which states,

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...”

It also includes a couple more items that cannot be waived by the accused and cannot be denied in an honorable court.

The words, by an impartial jury, define the party responsible for deciding all criminal cases. It is the impartial jury, not a judge.

For rock solid clarity in this issues, allow me to quote from the United States Founding Charter. This is one of the many grievances against King George III in 1776,

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:”

To solve this grievance, they included the part in Article 3, and most of the first ten amendments, especially Amendments, 4, 5, 6, 7 that address crimes and money.

Besides, if we need more clarification as to why judges should be prohibited from deciding the outcome of a case we need merely look into the astonishing volumes of court records where personal prejudices from many judges ended up wrongly convicting far too many innocent people. Though juries are not perfect either, there are more minds in the mix to hopefully cool some of the hot-headed people on the jury.

With some judges (one is too many), the decisions become a ring knocking ceremony to see which lawyers went to school with the judge or at the same law school. For this and other reasons already mentioned, the founders pretty much made judges the court referees, hopefully assuring that the accused person receives a fair trial and the the victims be justly compensated.


Comment on The Governor BLOG











[Return to Table of Contents]













“Educational” Material





Ain't it odd that sometimes we have to read an item several times after we live a little longer and learn a little more before we see the importance of what we discarded earlier.

I purchased about a dozen study guides from quickstudy.com from Bar Charts, Inc. on a variety of topics that include anatomy, astronomy, conversion charts, and more. This information is about the chart titled, "U.S. Government".

Its section, The Political Party System, III, A, It claims that UNITED STATES Representatives are free to vote as they desire, regardless of what the voters desire.

“The UNITED STATES is a Republic. Each of its elected officials is, therefore, free to vote their own consciences regardless of the ostensible 'will' of the people who elected them.”

The guide seems to misunderstand the differences between Republics and Democracies. In republics, the people elect representatives who either do as they wish or they do as the people instruct of them.

For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the definition for a Representative is one who, acts in the name of and by the authority of the good people. (UNITED STATES Founding Charter)

With that, the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should enjoy a fully representative Republic as opposed to a non-representative Republic that now exists.

Look at it this way. You hire a lawyer, not to make decisions for you but to advise you so that you may make the best decision for yourself. The lawyer is then supposed to work towards your chosen end.

In item I, A, The Executive Branch; The Guide tells about how the president cannot make any laws but can issue executive orders regarding laws that are already on the books as interpreted by the President.

No part of the 1787 Constitution for the UNITED STATES OF AMEIRICA grants to any branch of government, not even the legislative branch, the executive or the judicial branches the power to interpret the Constitution. Once the law exists, if it supports the principles of the Constitution, there is no interpretation required.

Then, the Guide claims that Congress makes the two-term tradition the law of the land. Once again, no place within the 1787 Constitution does Congress, the Executive, or the Judicial Branches possess any power to alter the Constitution. At best, Congress may only suggest changes. The States alone may effect changes to the Constitution. The States get their power from the People, at least according to the constitutions of nearly all the States.

Supposedly, the President possesses power that is either defined or implied by the Constitution or by tradition.

This type of educational material is the absolute worst; especially the implied and traditional. If the People, via the Constitution do not grant the power, the power doesn't legally exist.

The worst part of it is the last part of it. If one President starts an illegal and unconstitutional tradition; does that make it legal for future presidents to also perform? What would be nice is if they actually started a tradition of working within the confines of the Constitution.

In their section, The Three Branches of Government, the Guide declares that the Judiciary has power to interpret the laws of the land as " stated, or implied by the Constitution."

Repeating here, as with the Executive Office: No place in the Constitution do the People grant to the Courts any power to interpret the laws or the Constitution. The sole purpose of the Courts is to try the cases brought before it.

Twice in the Constitution it states:

“Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2, The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury...”

“Amendment 6, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...”

As for the Judicial Branch, the Guide lists about 20 cases dating back as early as 1803. I'll briefly mention six of them.

Regarding the Marbury v. Madison in 1803; the Guide claims that the case establishes judicial review, an act that grants to the courts the power to rule whether some law, act, or rule is unconstitutional.

If the Constitution does not specifically grant to the Courts, that power does not legally exist. The worst precedent that such wrong statements create is that government offices and/or officials may grant to themselves powers not specifically named in the Constitution, thus continuing our road to tyranny.

The power of what people wrongly call Judicial Review, already exists in the Constitution, Article 6. The People name the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance to it as the Supreme Laws of the Land. Additionally, the People make the judges, executive, and the legislators in every State and the United States, bound to the Constitution, and to support it. Part of that support includes this little phrase: " Any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Back to the Guide. It uses McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), claiming that the Court uses it to establish Constitutional Supremacy of the Federal Government over that of the State Governments claiming implied powers.

Article 5 does not make the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA supreme. What the Constitution is supposed to accomplish is to set the Constitution as SUPREME. In doing so, it makes the Government of the UNITED STATES subordinate to the States.

What proof of this do I possess?

Your reading assignment is to read Article 5 of the Constitution for the United States of America. The government of the UINTED STATES must obtain consent from the States (via their legislatures) to amend into the Constitution any additional powers. This makes the Federal Government subordinate to Governments of the several States.

This might seem to put an extremely large amount of power into the hands of the States. It does not. From what I gather, a large majority of the States obtain their powers from the consent of their citizen/residents. This comes from to points: The State Constitutions, but most importantly the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

If the Guide is correct with the Munn v. Illinois, in that it supposedly grants to the States, from the Federal Government, the power to regulate private business. If the Federal Government uses this case in such a manner, it is evidence that the officials of the Federal Government seek unjust powers. As the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 5, the Amendment Article states: Only the State Legislatures may approve the UNITED STATES Constitution amendments. With that, the Federal Governments has no authority to grant to the State Governments any powers what so ever. Only the People of the individual States possess the power to grant to their State governments any additional powers.

According to the guide, the courts supposedly used the case Schenk v. U.S. to limit wartime freedom of speech.

With regard to Freedom of Speech within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, according to the Supreme Law of the Land (the Constitution for the United States of America) in Amendment 1: Congress (the only branch of government authorized to make laws) shall not make any laws abridging the exercise of freedom of speech. This was established within just a few short years after the war that defended the newly created UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Government cannot prevent a person from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire), but they sure-a-shoot'n can prosecute the person for any damage that their "Freedom of Speech" causes.

Saving the most important case for last, the Guide uses the case Dennis et al v. U.S. as well as the Yates v. U.S. that suggest that it is a crime to use force to overthrow the government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

As most errors regarding the Constitution and other laws, this error results from a lack of reading or a deliberate omission of key parts of the Constitution itself. This time we look to Amendment 9. The Constitution does not list the rights that the people possess. It only lists certain rights that the People allow their government to get involved in for such specific reasons as crimes or that of listing others for absolutely preventing government involvement in those rights that include Freedom of Speech.

To easily understand the most important of those rights that the People preserved with Amendment 9, I suggest reading the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

In the second paragraph, it states that the People (specifically the governed) forever possess the power to control their governments, especially when those governments become destructive to the ends of helping the people protect their rights. The example of the Founding Charter is two-fold: It demonstrates that the people should do all that they are able to make the changes in their government as peaceably as possible. It also tells of our DUTY to make those changes by force if necessary, which ended up our Founders final option. It usually ends up being the actions by our government that determines how much force is necessary.

The unfortunate facts are that when the People fail to control their governments, the governments eventually jail the people for trying to peaceably control their government.

Is it any wonder why the people get so confused about what their true powers are as those powers relate to controlling their government? Political Action Committees tell candidates that the people want such-and-such a result, so the politicians become faithful to the PAC's and Lobbies. Judges become professors and teachers. If the judge is less than honorable, they teach new lawyers those less than honorable practices. After a few generations and thousands of law students and political science students, it does not take many years before our country is full of improperly taught City Council members, City Managers, Judges, County Commissioners, State Legislators, Governors, Members of Congress, and much more. As they remember what they learned, many of them no longer read the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or the Constitution for the United States of America. These people only read the skewed works of others who held office before then as if they speak the absolute truth on an issue.

I do not ask you to take my word for the claims that I make. I insist that you read the following document first, the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the Declaration of Independence). You will see the importance of my request when you read the second document I recommend; the Constitution for the United States of America, along with all its amendments. In this way, you are certain to better understand why specific parts were added to the constitution. You also will discover how your power as a citizen (governed) person, combined with many others is the rightful sovereign power to control your government.

Comment on "Educational" Material BLOG


[Return to Table of Contents]













Additional “Educational” Material





A pocket-booklet called, The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It, 7th Edition, 14th Printing, © 2009 by Oak Hill Publishing Co., they also included a section about Supreme Court cases. The title of their section is, Twenty Landmark Cases In Supreme Court History where the book lists a lot of cases. Aside from some of the ones listed above, I only reference two cases.

The first of the two is that of the case of "Texas v. Johnson, 1989 The Constitution protects desecration of the flag as a form of symbolic speech." They quote a few words from the decision written by Justice Brennan:

“Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Go figure.

If the courts actually held to that decision on a universal basis, they could not find the expression of the ideas regarding child molestation, random (no reason) killing, drug dealing in schools, prostitution, yelling fire in a crowded theater, or any other supposed ideas that society finds offensive or disagreeable.

Our government regulates and punishes each of those other expressions of ideas. The key element that the courts refuse to accept is that if the concept is correct for the expression of one idea, it must also be acceptable for the expression of all ideas. Otherwise, the courts may not interfere with community or State laws that prohibit specific actions. People can rightly speak their hatred towards the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without burning flags or other items.

The second case to which the booklet refers is that of "Roe v. Wade, 1973 The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman's choice in matters of abortion." The second case to which the booklet refers is that of "Roe v. Wade, 1973 The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman's choice in matters of abortion."

Constitutionally implied right to privacy? In the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 4,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons...”

What happens in most cases is that legislators overstep their authority in trying to please their own sense of morality. They pass laws that make criminals out of people who commit no crimes. A crime is defined as one person who violates another person's rights. Proof of this is found in the sole purpose for our governments.

We find the sole-purpose for out governments in the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Paragraph 2, which states:

“That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness —That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...”

There are two distinct enemies when it comes to the preservation of our rights: Foreign and/or Domestic.

Foreign enemies are easy enough to determine. They tend to be those other nations that attack us on our own soil in attempts to take our land and put an end to our laws and customs.

Domestic enemies tend to be a bit more difficult to determine. Domestic enemies come in two styles: The smaller are those who desire to infringe on the rights of a few people at a time, and the larger are those who work to do so on a much larger scale.

The smaller of these domestic enemies tend to best be identified as a criminal, a thief, a killer, etc. The larger domestic enemies tend to best be identified as political officials: Lawmakers who create and pass illegal laws: Executive officials who create laws by abusing their enforcement powers and by enforcing illegal laws by not challenging them when those laws clearly violate the Rule of Law created by the appropriate Constitution(s). Then there are the Courts, the Judges who create law by using prior cases to decide the outcome of newer cases, and by not challenging illegal laws, as well as convicting person of crimes without providing a proper jury trial.

People talk about "interpreting" the Constitution or other laws, as if they are written in some sort of foreign language. Any law that requires interpretation, except in cases where the defendant speaks a foreign language, indicates that the law is unenforceable because of it lacks clarity.

Aside from the clarity issue, judges are never to decide the outcome of any case, except those of common law (non-criminal) where the value is under $25. The primary purpose for judges is to referee the trials to make certain that the rights of the victims and the rights of the accused person remain intact, as well as sentencing the convicted person according to the Jury's findings and according to the rules of the law.

I do not quote Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branch officials in attempts to properly understand the Constitution or whether a law is legal and enforceable or not. I consult the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Current Constitution for the United States of America, the appropriate State Constitution, and the law a person is supposed to have offended. In short, it all must come back to the UNITED STATES Founding Charter: Do the People possess the moral authority to grant, and did the People grant to their government the power to make such a law.

If the individual does not possess the so-called moral authority to control another person's life in a particular manner, neither that person, nor many people can empower their government officials to do for them that which they do not have the power to so for themselves.

The only believable reason politicians might "need" some sort of power to "interpret" the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and any other law for that matter, is because the People do not usually grant to those politicians the power to destroy their own Nation, State, County, or Community. Therefore, politicians "need" the power to interpret such instruments in such manners as the politicians consider necessary to usurp and abuse the powers that the people granted to them via the Constitution.

Politicians use the interpretation card to power that long train of abuses and usurpations spoken of by our founders. Such abuses subject the people (the governed) to an absolute tyranny created by the politicians and ultimately allowed by the people.

It is not for politicians to interpret the Constitution. It is for the People to tell our politicians what the Constitution means.


Comment on Additional "Educational" Material BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]














Is It Any Wonder?





Is it any wonder why we the people presently find our government in such disorder?

We have a law professor who seems to teach that the government (at least the judicial branch) should be able to add to themselves more power when they, the government, consider it necessary to acquire those powers. Remember the example above about giving the power of others to amend the rules established to regulate that power.

Then, we have a judge, who mistakenly thinks that the government (Court) actually possesses the power to grant to themselves such powers not specifically granted to them by the Constitution.

Then there are the candidates, who in one breath tell us what we want to hear while we ignore their second breath when they tell others what they also want to hear, even when both statements conflict.

With all the propaganda masquerading as educational material, it does little to properly educate the people. Worse yet, it serves to misinform government officials who lean toward an unjust control over the people they are sworn to serve.

In pointing blame, with all our fingers pointing fault in others; How many of our fingers point back at ourselves for allowing these injustices to continue?



Comment on Is It Any Wonder? BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













A Political Emergency





(Enter. Severe-Weather Warning Siren)

This is a test. Your answer to the following question determines whether an actual emergency exists within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the People of the united States —or not.

What is your overall most important right?

If your response included, for example; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the ownership of property, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, or any number of other similar rights; you are in agreement with most people. Yes, those rights are valuable. Sadly, as responses, they are incorrect.

(Sound Severe-Weather Warning Siren)

THIS IS AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY! You must go to the UNITED STATES Founding Charter to help you understand how to preserve your rights.

The correct response to the question comes from the united words of our Founders from the UNITED STATES Founding Charter; their agreement comes in these words:

“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If that were not strong enough, they continue with:

“But when a long train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.””

How did you do?

Agreeably, different rights are more important to one person than to another at different times. However, the most important right is the one right that preserves all other rights. Repeating for emphasis:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... ”

When governments become destructive to the preservation of our rights, being ill informed on the topic of how our rights interact with and adjust the powers of our government is the death-sentence for all our rights.

The Founding Charter is the guide for Us-The-People. It is important to us in many ways. We should not discard it as being no longer relevant just because we are no longer under the rule of the British Crown.

We obtain proper understanding of both the UNITED STATES Founding Charter and the Constitution for the United States of America when we —read them. Do not merely trust the opinions of others, no matter how trusted. Go to the source —the documents.



Comment on A Political Emergency BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













Hotter Water





While at a public Wi-Fi Hot-Spot, I heard one person ask another,

“How do I get into the Obituaries? ”

Several hours later, in an unrelated conversation, another person responded to a complaint about some new construction and said,

“They'll complain about it for a while, and then they'll get used to it.”

When viewed in the light of the following story about the cook, the frogs, and the water-pot, the unrelated conversations above become politically appropriate.

The cook places the frogs into the water, which the frogs might consider rather comfortable at the start. The cook gradually turns the heat up. Though the water gets a little uncomfortable for a short time, the frogs complain about it for a while until they finally get used to it.

The changes are gradual. Only the cook knows the frog's final destination.

Is this the best change for which we the people of these united States might hope? Is hotter water the best we might expect from our politicians?

Now you understand. The second statement is how we get into the first. We merely complain about our government's abuse for a while before we get used to it. That comfort lands us squarely into the obituaries.

The UNITED STATES Founding Charter states:

“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have become accustomed.”

It's long past time for us little froggies to right ourselves by climbing out of the pot. It's long past time for us to apply the flame to the seats of our politicians and fire the lot of them.

If you want to understand what rights you could still enjoy today, talk with your parents, grand- and great-grandparents. What rights did they enjoy that today our government makes illegal for us.



Comment on Hotter Water BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













Buying Congress





It is Easier and Cheaper than Imagined.

When you realize that no matter how moral or honest an individual may think about themselves, everyone has a price. As with most products, some people possess much lower price tags than others.

There are about 525 Members of Congress. When 263 is a simple majority; 350 is the 2/3's veto-proof majority.

It is easy to buy votes, especially when you realize that you need not even buy 50% of the needed votes. Anywhere from a few to most of the desired votes are likely to already favor the proposed law, so you need not buy those votes.

The average Congressional vote sells for about $500,000.00 X 200 votes = $100,000,000.00; at least until someone else buys a repeal or another vote for a little more money. One-hundred million dollars is not a lot of money, especially when a specific vote may produce tens of hundreds of millions in return.

Consider this: If the legislative branch (Congress) was about 150,000,000 members strong nationwide, and it required 2/3's of all eligible voters to pass any legislative proposal or project (Nationally, that is about 100 million votes to buy); Then if we reduce the average cost of a vote to only $5,000; the cost to buy one legislative act nears $500,000,000,000.00 (five-hundred billion dollars). At that price, it is not likely that any business will invest that sum to purchase votes, and if so, not nearly as often.

Comment on Buying Congress BLOG









[Return to Table of Contents]















Part II: Understanding the 1787 Constitution









Introduction to Understanding





The People (the Governed) forever possess the Right —the DUTY— to alter, abolish, or throw off their Bad Government. Worded slightly different, this is the primary ideal established in the 1776 Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Rights —not exercised— are soon forgotten.

The previous phrase is a proven predicament of the governed people throughout the histories of the human condition. When we forget our rights, or worse yet refuse to exercise them, others create their tyranny over the people.

In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to obtain the proper understanding of the designed relationship between Sovereignty (those who possess the power to control government) and the powers of that government, the student must know where and what to study.

Where would you start?

The subject of any topic has a large number of possible starting points. Take for example, Human origins, a topic that generates many of following responses: Creator; Evolution; Conception; Birth; Parents; Age Eighteen; and more. The same troubles arise when specifying the starting point for correctly understanding who, within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, rightly possesses what powers as it relates to government within and for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

In order to properly understand who has specific political powers, where is a person to start?

Most people, when prompted as to the birthday of the UNTITED STATES OF AMERICA, the consensus is within several weeks of July 4th 1776.

Why then, and not 1492 with Columbus? That with which people credit to Columbus was not the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; it was the British Colonies settled on the America continent. The people settled those colonies for different reasons than the people of 1776 had for creating the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That which we name the 1776 Declaration of Independence is in fact the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It details the reasons for those actions and it specifies the sole principle upon which they founded the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

With that basic understanding, we easily obtain the proper understanding that all constitutions, charters, and laws prior to 1776, become irrelevant; at least as far as they concern the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The entirety of law and the delegation of powers, as they relate to the relationships between the people (the governed) and their government, it all began in 1776 with the Charter that memorializes the creation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

What proof do I offer?

From the last paragraph of the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...”

Though their Declaration was official when published, the People of the newly formed UNITED STATES OF AMERICA had to defend, against the powers of the British Crown, those very rights that they declared belonged to them. Once Great Britain surrendered, the People of 1776 held title to their New Country that they called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The only UNITED STATES OF AMERICA document that is superior to the Constitution for the United States of America is the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. You probably know this Charter as the Declaration of Independence. Independence is its primary purpose but its secondary value.

Since the Sovereign powers over government for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA no longer belongs to the British Crown. In the next article, we learn where that Sovereign power went.



Comment on Introduction to Understanding BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













Sovereign Powers





I suppose that it helps to understand the importance of Sovereign Power by first understanding how others define it.

Defining Sovereign, quoting from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+power:

“The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.”

Did you get that?

I'll paraphrase with this: The power by which and from which all specific political powers are derived, combined with the right and power of regulating internal affairs of State without interference from foreign States.

Most people recognize some definition close to the one above as that for sovereignty.

Our government officials act as though they possess this sovereign power. Our question, naturally, should be: Do they?

Quoting from the second paragraph of the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness —That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

A short side note. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness aren't the only unalienable rights. Did you notice these words, "that among these are..."?

Aside from the legal definition first provided, the quote from the Founding Charter (Declaration of Independence) provides sufficient legal standing and definition as to not only who possess the legal sovereignty in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it also suggests those times when it becomes appropriate for that Sovereign Power to exercise their political muscle to control their government.

This is a perfect spot to ask the question regarding which of our rights is the most important.

At this point, many people maintain that either life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness is the most important. Sure, those rights are important. Have you ever wondered: What good are those rights if you are unable to exercise them because your government tries to prevent you?

Herein rests our most important right:

“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...”

That short phrase makes three distinct and important declarations:

The purpose of government: To secure the rights of the people (the governed).

It names the Governed as the Sovereign Power: Governments..., deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed.

That governed individuals, as individuals, are not the sovereign power. Consent of the Governed does not specify percentage. This is for those people to specify for themselves. The common practice is 50% plus one.

Most likely, you heard that the Declaration of Independence (Founding Charter) no longer possesses a useful purpose; other than to remind us of our legal separation from the State of Great Britain. The oddity is that you can never hope to gain the proper understanding that most people claim to seek without first really learning the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

This is a good place for the next segment: Defining Tyranny. In the next segment, we discover the reasoning as to why our Founding Generation included certain specifics into the 1787 Constitution. Can you imagine that all of this requires zero interpretation?



Comment on Sovereign Powers BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]













Tyranny Defined





To help us and future generations avoid the need to go to war against our family, friends, and neighbors in order to improve our government, our Founding Charter provides to us a list of some thirty traits to recognize a tyranny that might form within our own governments.

To list all all the grievances and explain each one takes too much space, so I chopped the list to just a few of the more obvious and most frequently abused. Once you see what is happening, I hope you continue your study of the 1787 Constitution with its Amendments in greater detail. Remember to keep your copy of the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA handy as you proceed.

The Founding Charter introduces the list of grievances with these words:

“Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

That quote explains why our 1776 Founders took the actions they did. It was that long Train of abuses and usurpations they spoke of in the Founding Charter. The following short list details some of those abuses and how they expected to improve their political condition.

The 1776 references to "He" is to that of King George III, ruler of the State of Great Britain at the time. Our Founding generation divided government powers into three branches for what is presently State of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The past "He" could presently refer to Congress (Legislative Branch), President (Executive Branch), Supreme Court (Judicial Branch). I focus my attention on the 1787 Constitution with its Amendments, precisely because the People of 1787 name them as the Supreme Law of the Land.

With this, I address crime and punishment in general terms. Quoting from the Supreme Law of the Land (The Constitution for the United States of America), Amendment 13, Section 1 and 2,

“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place Subject to their jurisdiction.

“Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”

Contrary to most opinions, slavery was never totally abolished within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Section 1 is proof of this fact. Within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the use of slavery and/or involuntary servitude shall serve only one purpose: The punishment of crime.

As for duly convicted of a crime, the Constitution covers crime generally with Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 3,

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury...”

Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 5, covers the need for warrants and the requirements for obtaining them.

“No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly...”

Probable cause is not sufficient enough to search without a warrant. Probable cause is only sufficient to obtain a warrant. The warrant must be specific as to place searched and persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 covers capital crimes.

Amendment 6 gets general enough that it includes all crimes,

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...”

All criminal prosecutions: The word all seems rather clear. No interpretations needed here. That is, unless those interpreting have tyranny in mind.

Amendment 7 covers the non-criminal cases called common law. There, the right of trial by jury is preserved if the controversy exceeds $20. The question is; at whose discretion is the value adjusted for inflation? The answer is simple, not at the court's discretion. Since inflation is not factored into the Constitution, in order for the politicians to legally change that amount, they must seek the consent of the people via an amendment.

Arizona's Joe Arpaio, seems to be getting the dirty end of the stick from Washington D.C. They should be attacking the courts for violating Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 3; Amendments 4, 5, 6,& 7; as well as Article 6 (the oath to support the Constitution).

Since Mr. Arpaio does not try the cases that deliver the convicts to him, he has either of two options. First, in keeping with Amendment 13, he must release all those in his custody who did not receive a jury trial because they were not duly convicted. Another option is that he files suit against Congress for not upholding Amendment 13.

If you took the time to read the entire list of grievances, against King George III, the above Constitutional references pretty much intend to resolve this grievance:

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.”

Here are a couple of related grievances:

“For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:”

“For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”

Through our education system, specifically related to educating lawyers and political science majors who become many of our politicians, our schools teach that the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has no current value beyond reminding us of our separation from Great Britain. If we accept those teaching as correct, our politicians have nearly completed their destruction of our nation.

For us, the Governed, that Declaration of Independence is our most valuable charter. It names us the people (the consent of the governed) as the proper legal Sovereign Power responsible for controlling the powers of our governments.

By granting to themselves power not specifically named in the Constitution, our politicians change the Form of our government. Congress does not defend their legislative powers when they allow the office of the President to legislate from the Executive Office via executive orders and signing orders. Congress also allows the Supreme Courts to legislate over the people allowing the Courts to grant to themselves powers not named in the Constitution. The use of the power of precedence, using of prior case decisions to decide future cases, is one of those powers not granted to the Courts by the Constitution.

Then Congress, wrongly usurps the power granted in the first lines of the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 1, which states,

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...”

Congress presently interprets that clause as a grant to them of powers to legislate in all cases whatsoever. It does not.

Section 1 grants legislative powers only to Congress, not to the Executive and not to the Judicial. ALL legislative power granted in the Constitution is vested in the Congress. So I repeat. Absolutely no legislative power is granted to the Executive or the Judicial Branches.

The Declaration stands as a reminder to us of the problem that we currently face. Here are their words:

“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.”

We do not exercise our Sovereign Power to control our government officials when we merely wait for the next election to hopefully rid ourselves of those politicians who refuse to properly perform their duties. By allowing them to remain in office their full term, we merely reward them for destroying our country.

The only way that we might rid ourselves of corrupted politicians is by voting them out of office, which, by the way, is an act that happens only in recall elections —not in the regularly scheduled elections.

We'll close this segment on the grievances with just a few quickies.

If you cannot accurately name 25% of all the government departments and offices within our present federal government this next grievance needs no explanation.

“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. ”

This is another mark of a tyrant you should recognize within our government:

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:”

Although the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Article 4, Section 3, grants to Congress the power to admit new States into our Union, it does not grant to Congress any power to subject the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to any jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution and laws.

Then, according to Article 6, Paragraph 2, any laws or other acts of government officials that are contrary to the Constitution are "acts of pretended legislation".

That pretty much concludes the importance of the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and how it helped create the Constitution and helps us to properly understand the 1787 Constitution today.

Next we get into a few little known facts about the 1787 Constitution and its Amendments.



Comment on Tyranny Defined BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Power to Amend the Constitution





Depending on the Country in question, the temporary power to amend a constitution varies depending upon the form of government at the time. The ultimate source of that power is universal. The Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA identifies that source of this power in these words:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...”

That statement is especially important for the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is the UNITED STATES Founding Principle. All other components of the Founding Charter support that Founding Principle. Essentially, the statement names the People (the Governed) as the only group allowed to even create any Form of Government for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A Form of Government is generally referred to as a Constitution.

The 1787 Constitution for the United States of America, in the Preamble, it identifies We the People as the official power that authorized (ordained and established) that Constitution. Amendment 5, is the only place in the 1787 Constitution that mentions the power to amend the Constitution or to call a Constitutional Convention for that purpose. The only branch of the Federal Government that the People named as an involved party is that of the Legislative Branch (Congress). The powers of Congress are extremely limited to only that of recommending, not enacting.

Fortunately, Article 5 of the 1787 Constitution does not grant any power to Congress to actually enact any amendments. Congress may only recommend amendments. Only the People, via their State Legislatures, possess the power to enact those amendments.

In the event State Governments become too corrupted to correctly represent the people, the people forever retain the right and duty to make the necessary adjustments to their State Constitution or even to completely replace it.

The unfortunate facts about our present government officials are that they no longer follow the Rule of Law that We the People created with the Supreme Law of the Land, which presently is the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America. The only reason that they get away with so much abuse is because we, the governed, do so little to correct the wayward course of actions by our politicians. Without that much-needed correction from us, our politicians act like spoiled children as they test our limits to see just how far they can go before we do more than than count to three and start threatening to yell at them again. All the while we should taking action with that wide leather belt —in the form of recall elections.



Comment on Power to Amend the Constitutoin BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Power to Interpret the Constitution





Have your ever asked yourself about the Power to Interpret the Constitution, and who rightly possesses that power?

With the number of times I searched the Constitution, I never found where the People granted to any branch of government the power to interpret. I did find where all branches and all levels of government are to be bound by the Constitution and to uphold the Constitution. That location is Article 6.

If government officials find it difficult to comprehend the contents of the Constitution and the limitations on the specific grant of powers within it, they must obtain confirmation from the only people who have the legal power to make those clarifying decisions and/or changes to the Constitution —The Governed People.



Comment on Power to Interpret the Constitution BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Little Known Constitutional Facts





If you are accused of any type crime, which is any government prohibited or regulated action, you cannot legally waive your right to a impartial jury trial, nor can the courts legally refuse to provide it.

Reasoning: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 3, states, "The trial of crimes... shall be by jury."

Reasoning: Amendment 6, states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speed and public trail by an impartial jury..."

There are no Federal Constitutional restrictions that prohibit States from allowing citizens under the age of 18 to vote.

Reasoning: Amendment 26, states, "The right of citizens of the UNITED STATES, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of age."

Reasoning: It does not prohibit people under the age of 18 from voting, only that over 18 the government cannot prohibit or deny voting on account of age.

ONLY the Legislative Branch (the Congress, for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) has the power to enact laws for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; but only in accord with the Constitution for the United States of America. They do not possess the legislative power to make laws in all areas of life.

Reasoning: The Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, from list of grievances against King George III, states, "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever."

Reasoning: Article 1, Section 1, states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress..."

The government for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is forbidden from joining any other political jurisdiction that might subject the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to any laws foreign and/or contrary the their Constitution. However, they may add other independent States to our Union that are willing to become subject to our Constitution.

Reasoning: The Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, from the list of grievances against King George III, states, "He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; and giving his assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."

Reasoning: Article 4, Section 3, Paragraph 1, states, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union..."

Get this oddity of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA government:

From time to time, some of the items in the Constitution may become unconstitutional, based solely on the Preamble to the Constitution, its Amendments, as well as including the short list of grievances in the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Primarily, for the benefit to the people, some of the items not specifically named or listed in the Constitution have equal weight as those listed. For example: Prohibiting our politicians from joining other political jurisdictions (such as, UN, NAFTA, and many others) that may subject the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to jurisdictions that are foreign and contrary to our Constitution.

The Right and the Duty of the People to alter, abolish, and/or throw off their governments via the consent of the governed People. This also prohibits government politicians from doing the same, via Article 5, where government officials may only recommend changes. Only the People, via their State Legislators may actually enact those changes to their Forms of Government.

In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the only document that is superior to the Constitution for the United States of America is the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. You probably know this Charter by its more common name of the Declaration of Independence. Independence is its primary purpose but its secondary value.

The primary value of the Declaration is that it legally is the Founding Charter that created the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It legally separated the powers of the former British Colonies on the American continent from the powers of the State of Great Britain. That separation was eventually defended on the battlefield because the British Crown was not willing to recognize or grant the separation in the British Courts.

It makes universal statements regarding the eternal relationships between the Governed and their Governments, personalizing those statements for the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We will only remember the value of those statements as long as we exercise them.

The Founding Charter retains, by far, the greater value to and for the People. It details the relationship of the unified power of the People and our control over our government. We, the flesh and blood People own our governments. We also own our Corporations.

These are simply some of the points about the Founding Charter that I added to a version of a new Constitution for the United States of America to correct the political ills present under our current 1787 Constitution.

Why a new Constitution?

We need a new Constitution simply because with too many amendments and repeals, or a few that are unclear, politicians who are not aware of all of them, lean toward enforcing only the parts that benefit their personal objectives.

The remainder of this work focus on creating that much needed updated Constitution for the United States of America, making sure that our government officials are aware that they do not possess any power to interpret the Constitution or other laws.



Comment on Little Known Constitutional Facts BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Constitutional Violations





Prosecutors: No constitutional provisions allow for the act of extorting plea-bargains from the accused by offering them "a deal" if they forgo a jury trial and plead guilty, whether they are or not. In fact, the Constitution for the United States of America expressly prohibits plea-bargaining as it requires that every person accused of any crime must enjoy the impartial trial by jury. The prosecuting attorney cannot bargain it away, the courts cannot deny it, and the accused cannot waive that right —at least legally according to the Constitution.

Judges who dealking in plea-bargains for the same reason.

Defense Lawyers who accept plea-bargains for the same reason.

Judges, Defense Lawyers, and Prosecutors who refuse jury trials to any person accused of a crime —any size crime. In the Constitution for the UNITED STATES OF AMERIC, Amendment 6, it demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a jury trial. Then in Amendment 7, which covers all non-criminal trials that either party may request a jury trial and the courts cannot refuse it. Unfortunately, far too many judges refuse jury trials without proper Constitutional authority to do so.

Executive Officers who enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws violate the Constitution.

Lawmakers who create unjust and unconstitutional laws violate the Constitution as well.



Comment on Constitutional Violations BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













An Important Day in History





Today is the most important day in history.

People rarely wake to any morning with the thought —Gee, I think I'll make history. Usually, not even the people who you read about in history class or in the news set out to make history.

Today —this very moment is the most important moment. It is right now that we can right any wrongs; we can improve ourselves; and improve our community. Ultimately we set the example for others —giving them the courage to Pay-It-Forward.



Comment on An Important Day in History BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Drawing a Line





Constitutions are the rules that line in the sand that the people create to tell their government what powers that the government possesses and how far those powers extend into specific rights of the people. Constitutions are that line that governments are forbidden to cross. Only the Sovereign Power, the Consent of the Governed, has the authority to create or change a constitution. Who is that Sovereign Power in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

The Governed!



Comment on Drawing a Line BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













1776 —The Sequel





The people of 2011 stand on the same political ground that the Founders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stood in 1776. That ground is trying to retain proper control over the powers of government.

As the people became more productive and wealthier, the government began growing and spending more of the people's money. The people became broker and broker and not allowed to enjoy as many of their rights.

Many of the people today, knowing the outcome of 1776, would likely join the treasonous UNITED STATES Founders in 1776. However, not knowing the outcome in 2011, few are willing to risk anything for that cause of regaining our rightful control over the powers of our governments.

What are you willing to risk to gain an improved UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

We fear so much that that we will repeat the bloody 1776 days that we do nothing. We fail to realize that it is in doing nothing that forces future generations to repeat the 1776 shedding of blood in the name of liberty.

If this generation does not want to be the one remembered as the people who let the experiment in Liberty, called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, fail; we best get off our back-sides to improve our situation.


Comment on 1776 - The Sequel BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













The Importance of the Written Word





It used to be that a word-of-mouth agreement was only as good as the memories of those who made it. Up until recently, an agreement was as good as the paper upon which it is written. Today, an agreement is only as good as good as the people willing to enforce it.

When it comes to government, specific to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the first and most important written document is that of the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Most people know the Founding Charter by the name of the Declaration of Independence.

What does the Founding Charter accomplish?

Aside from the many tasks that it accomplished and still serves, at least so long as we remain the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; it serves to remind each generation that it is we the people who forever retain the right and duty to control our governments.

The day that we the people forget the principles of a people (governed)-controlled-government, as stated in our Founding Charter, our government, as so many governments before, will destroy our people as they destroy our ideals of liberty and freedom for all.

The second most important written document is that of our Constitution. Our Constitution is designed for the people to constantly update, especially for those times whenever our politicians and governments seeks to take powers that we did not grant to them.

Constitutions are the rules by which we the people control our government.

The Constitution for the Federal/National government names the powers specifically granted to and/or prohibited from the Federal Government, it also prohibits specific powers to the next-lower lever political jurisdictions. In this case, that smaller jurisdiction is the States. In the State Constitutions, the people of each State grant specific powers to their State governments while limiting the powers of the County and Town governments.

It is important for the people of every political jurisdiction to create constitutions for each of their governments; even for the cities and towns. In this way, the people within each jurisdiction are better able to control their governments.

The laws that the legislators create must be within the powers that the people grant via the appropriate jurisdiction's Constitution.

Only the governed People possess the right to alter, abolish, and/or throw off any form of government that they live within.



Comment on The Importance of the Written Word BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]

















Part III: The Journey to Solutions









Interviewing the UNITED STATES Founders





No single person or sub-group of the 1776 generation built the Foundation for the Country we now enjoy as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. For that reason, we do not seek the commentary from or about any one of the members from the Founding Generation or from any one of their Representatives. We seek answers from the Contract that created the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

As one of the many who inherited the title of Founder, ad-lib is part of my artistic license. The original Founder's answers below are not direct quotes, they are paraphrased material. Grab a copy of the UNITED STATES Founding Charter to see if you recognize their responses.

Please welcome the Founders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by way of their written voice though their Unanimous Declaration of 1776 (the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AERICA).

Let's get right to the interview to better understanding our rights and duties as legal inhabitants of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.



  1. (Interviewer Asks Q) Where do humans get their rights?

(Founders Respond with A) We wrote that humans obtain their unalienable rights from their creator. Though we may have these rights, we possess no guarantee as to how long we might enjoy them.

As individuals, we define our rights for ourselves. Most of the time, we leave the naming of those rights for occasions when others impose their will upon us in ways that might prevent us from enjoying those rights. From time to time, the people grant powers to their government to regulate specific rights. A sort list that we initiated in 1787 is that of specifically forbidding government preventions on religion, speech, and press. To keep society as safe as possible, we granted to government limited power to invade the right to privacy of citizens, provided the government has just cause, and we placed other guards on this restriction. In criminal cases, we specifically remove the right of the accused to waive the trial by jury and we prohibit the government from denying jury trial in any criminal case. These are mere examples that we thought necessary. It is your time to add to or take from our list.



  1. Q) You mentioned creator: Who is that creator?

A) This remains a tough question to answer precisely for the entire human race; because each person has their own opinion. Consider it safe for you to calculate from the contract of our Unanimous Declaration that the creator is not that of our governments.



  1. Q) What is the Purpose for our government?

A) In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the our government’s sole purpose is to help the people preserve their rights.



  1. Q) Where do governments obtain their powers?

A) Though it seems that each form of government might obtain its power from different sources, we consider the root or common source is the same as that for the government we created in 1787. We specified that source of power in our Founding Charter when we wrote that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.



  1. Q) The governed: Exactly who are the governed?

A) We designed the governments within these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA so that the governed people should wear two hats.

The people wear their most important hat as a unified force. Unified, the people possess the Sovereign Power responsible for controlling the powers of their governments.

The people wear the second hat individually, which makes them subject to the governments that they create and the laws that the government justly enacts according to the By-Laws that the people establish in the Constitution; or the laws that the people allow to develop through political corruption. When governments run smoothly and within the limits that the people place upon them, the second hat allows the people to enjoy their lives and individual pursuits of happiness.

The people, in a unified force, are not only the source of just government powers; as individuals, they are the recipient of the forces of that power, be it just or corrupt.



  1. Q) Which of our rights is the most important?

A) Of all, or any of the rights that anyone might imagine; to secure all our rights, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish our corrupted forms of government and to institute new government. Governments, both past and present, work towards creating a tyranny over their people. They restrict not only our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property, they endanger all of our other rights. This one right to alter or to abolish our forms of governments, if not exercised from time to time, those governments certainly will control every aspect of our lives.

Do not become comfortable with the minor abuses from your government. Remember the frog and the hot water. Mankind is more disposed to suffer, while those evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have become accustomed. Look at your recent history as to the numerous rights your parents, grand- and great-grandparents once enjoyed that your government now forbids. See for yourself whether previous generations became accustomed to various unjust political restrictions in the name of preserving their rights.

You must know by now, that tyrannies seldom appear quickly. Tyrants tend to work slowly and with a specific end-game plan. Tyrants may even fabricate plans spanning many generations of gradual implementation. For this reason, you the people must maintain a plan that also passes from generation to generation in order for you to ensure the security of your rights. You must change that plan when necessary. First, we called our plan The Articles of Confederation; then, we called our new plan The Constitution for the United States of America. What are you going to name your new plan for your government?

Ask yourself: How is a government able to secure your rights by unjustly taking those rights from you?



  1. Q) Speaking of tyranny: How might the citizens of today recognize such an abusive government as it forms?

A) WE compiled a list to help future generations recognize such marks that identify a tyranny. Some of the actions on our list may no longer make sense or even apply to you today. Since you called on us, you will recognize many of those complaints. We will not name all the complaints we listed in 1776 as me made them available to you in our Unanimous Declaration.

Here are several complaints from our list:

Has your government dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for invading the rights of the people?

Has your government combined with others to subject you to a jurisdiction foreign to your constitution, and unacknowledged by your laws, giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

...For imposing taxes on you without your consent?

...For depriving you in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury?

...For taking away your charters, abolishing your most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of your governments?

...For declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for you in all cases whatsoever?



(Spoken by interviewer) That is an interesting list. Our Congress has the power to enforce Amendment 13, which states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the UNITED STATES, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Congress does not exercise their powers to enforce this Amendment.

Our politicians abolish our representative houses when they remain deaf to our voice, passing laws to which we object. Politicians pass laws that grant to themselves powers that we have not authorized. They try us for pretended offenses by passing laws that are contrary to our constitution.

Although Congress has the Power to admit other Nations or Foreign States into this Union called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, our Constitution prohibits our politicians from joining with other leagues of nations that subject us to laws foreign and contrary to our Constitution. With that, our politicians make us subject to a United Nations, which is a global form of government; as well as subjecting us to the government rules of other nations by enforcing unconstitutional treaties.

Our politicians call many crimes by other names, such as offenses, so that they might avoid providing jury trials as the Constitution requires.

Our politicians completely ignore the UNITED STATES Founding Charter so that they might also abolish our Constitutional Rule of Law.

Our politicians, by their actions, ride us on that long train of abuses and usurpation, intent on subjecting us to an absolute tyranny.



(The Founders) Why in the world do you allow this train to travel so far?



(Spoken by interviewer) For many years, my teachers and politicians drummed it out that —I can't fight city hall. In school, my teacher taught about the existence of the Declaration of Independence, but no one taught me about its lasting importance as our Nation's Founding Charter. Many law and political science professors and graduates continue teaching that it no longer holds any power for the people to effect changes in our government.



(Founders respond) Do you mean to tell us that you cannot READ or understand what you read without someone telling you what to think? Look at the words we used: they, their, mankind. These words refer to everyone, past, present, and future. Aside from us, those words included all following generations. Those words include you.



(Spoken by interviewer) Point taken.



  1. (Interviewer Q) Our government, at an ever-increasing rate, completes each of those acts of tyranny you mentioned. What do you suggest?

(Founders A) Have you, in every stage of these oppressions, petitioned for a redress? Does your government answer your petitions with repeated and increased injury?

If so, politicians so marked by every act which may define a tyrant, are an unfit ruler of a free people.

Are you Free People?



  1. Q) Numerous instances exist of our petitions to our government. Our government fails to correct their unjust actions. They answer only with repeated injury: What should we do next?

A) Since you identify a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, which clearly demonstrates a design by your government to reduce you under absolute tyranny; it is your right, and it is your duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for your future security.

Fire the whole lot of them. Write a new Constitution. Then elect a new set of managers to handle the day-to-day affairs of your government.

In order for you to alter or abolish your present form of government, you all must band together, uniting for that single purpose. That is, if regaining control of your government is your objective. If so, make that your unifying motto. Divided in your efforts, you will fail.

You will experience many of the same difficulties we encountered. Those of you who might join for this effort possess differing sets of morals, likes, and dislikes. If you and any otherwise unlikable sorts see fit to unite for this effort, you certainly stand stronger together than if you oppose each other.

If your politicians, whether through deliberate action or through ignorance, orchestrate a plan to destroy you and your country, they will divide you into many smaller groups. They will see to it that these small groups distrust each other. The better your politicians are able to keep you from communicating with each other and from working together, they are better able to control you. You must find the common ground that encourages unity.



  1. Q) What is the most difficult aspect of exercising this right —our duty, with regard to controlling our government?

A) Prudence indeed dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly, all experience confirms that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Do you remember the chef who cooks the frog? Do not get comfortable when you see your government cooking your rights or the rights of your neighbor. Once your government destroys your neighbor's rights, whether you like your neighbor or not, ask yourself how much time you have left to enjoy your rights until your government wants to cook whats left of your rights.

Make sure that the reason you seek to alter or to abolish this form of government, if you determine such actions are necessary, is to preserve the rights of all of you and not merely the desires of a select few of you.



  1. Q) If we experience the same opposition from our politicians that all of you did while trying to get your government to self-correct; Is there any advice that you might offer should we proceed?

A) Specifically state what it is about your present government that you wish to alter or to abolish. Before you do this, you should have a plan ready so that you might inform the people about what and how you intend to improve your present form of government.

Since our time in 1787, you should know enough about what works with your present form of government and what failed. With that knowledge, construct a new form of government that serves to correct those ills and organize its powers as to all of you shall seem most likely to effect your safety and happiness and to provide new guards for your future security. All that any of us, in any generation might hope to accomplish is to leave the next generation with at least a slightly better form of government than that within which we lived.



  1. Q) What are some of our possible risks for taking action to improve our governments?

A) You stand the risk of winning. You stand the risk of gaining a much better form of government.

In your attempts to improve your government, if you go out unprepared and angry, without a definite plan of action and without the will to follow through to the desired end, you most likely will lose your fight, no matter how well intended.

The down side is that some of you will lose your respect. Some of you will suffer loss in part or in total of your fortunes. Others of you might lose your lives as well. The extent of your losses depends on the strength of unity amongst you, as well as how violently your politicians might oppose the very exercise of your rights that they took oath to help you defend.

With hindsight and knowing our outcome in the 1700's, we know that many of you would have joined us in our efforts in 1776 and 1787. Back then, our decision was not as easy or clear. You stand on the same political grounds where we once stood: the grounds of uncertainty about risking everything you possess for a better form of government and a better life.

With that, we ask you: Is this present government the type of government you desire to retain for yourselves? Is this government what you desire to leave to your children? Are you going to turn this government over to the next generation for them to deal with? Or: Will you do what you are able to do to improve it?



  1. Q) What is our cost if we fail in our quest, our right and duty to correct our government?

A) You might consider the cost to your children if you refuse to demonstrate to your government that it is your government that should fear you.



  1. Q) What advice could you offer regarding our treatment to those who might oppose us?

A) Hold them as you might the rest of mankind: Enemies in war, in peace, Friends.

If you refuse to learn how to improve your government from those who might oppose you, you risk losing some of your greatest teachers.

Treat those who oppose you as you might hope they would treat you should you fail —in peace, as Friends.

They also fight for that which they believe is the correct path for their country as well. You will do business with these people, when all is finished. We only hope that when you finish, the government you form might also be a creation of which they also might become proud to claim as their own.



  1. Q) How would you define the duties of a Representative?

A) Representatives act in the name and by the authority of the people who elected them. Do not assume that representation automatically happens just because the people elect a candidate.

While acting in the capacity of the representative, that person has no right to exercise their individual voice or will in that office. Representatives are duty-bound and honor-bound to carry the collective voice and collective authority of the people through their office, whether the representative agrees with that voice or not.

The Representative, as an individual in their private lives and off-duty time, like you, cast a vote in the polls and debate on issues in public forums and amongst their friends.

Your goal should be to elect individuals who not only recognize the differences between their political duties and their private lives, but also are willing to work and to live according to them.



  1. Q) Does the Constitution for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA bind the rights of the people?

A) Mostly, No. The Constitution is a tool for the People to use in identifying whether politicians abuse their just powers. As with any other tool, when unused, the people accomplish little in controlling the government.

Constitutional restrictions on the people tend to name certain rights that the people possess, where the people grant to their government certain limited powers of involvement to enable their government officials to perform their duties properly. These constitutional restrictions on the people's rights are limited specifically to those enacted laws that are not contrary to the constitution.

It is you, the unified people, the governed, who not only have the right but also the duty to re-adjust and re-align your politicians who enact unjust laws, acts, resolutions, or precedence. This includes all levels of government from the Executive, Judicial and the Legislative officials. If that means removing such politicians in the middle of their term, preventing them from causing more damage, so be it. Do not allow them to remain in office just because their term is not expired.

When constituents allow their corrupted politicians to remain in office for the duration of their elected term, the constituents send an incorrect message to the world that those politicians work in an honorable manner and that the people approve of the politician's actions.



  1. Q) Do you have any closing thoughts for us?

A) All that we talked about here, we wrote for you so that you might keep it close at hand to remind you who possesses the True Sovereign Political Power in the UNITED STATESOF AMERICA. When you forget that it is you are in control, you have no control.

The Roman Senate power-grab nearly ruined the Roman Empire. England's politicians nearly destroyed the British Empire. Our Congress, President, and the Courts now seek to destroy the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by fighting over powers that the people have not granted to them. Since 1776, we rightly control our politicians; so whose fault is it for their continued corruption?

As is the nature of a horse to run wild and free; so too, it has become the nature of politicians to eventually enslave the people by making us think that there is nothing we can do as they force us to pay for their want and their waste.

Exercise your political muscle. Do not trust all that your politicians tell you. Research and know your rights and duties.



Comment on Interviewing the UNITED STATES Founders BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Finding Value





The aspects about you that make you valuable differ by degrees from those that make another person valuable. Look to the workings of your own body for proof.

To understand how well two complete opposites work together for the benefit of the Union, the body to which they belong, we take a peek at the mouth muscles and the rectal muscles. Both work together, but they are not directly connected to each other. The most interesting aspect about our body is that without this unlikely and unusual team, our body would starve to death or die of toxic overdose.

For the best interest of the body to which they belong, neither the mouth nor the rectum work directly with each other or directly with the stomach. Our entire body works similarly with numerous go-betweens.

The purpose for this guide is to unite the most unlikely and diverse groups of people within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA so that we might strengthen our Union while also respecting and celebrating the great diversity of talents, personalities, customs, and life-style choices of our neighbors.



Comment on Finding Value BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Do Something Different





When life refuses to cooperate and we do not obtain our desired results, we must do that which brings us closer to our goals. When our actions involve anybody else, we are not in complete control of the outcome. That is why we must continuously alter our plans so as to keep us moving in the direction of our desired goals.

The results of our choices produce other causes and effects. Choose wisely, and live. If we choose foolishly, we risk reducing the number of our days.

Merely going to the polls to elect “The Lesser of Evils” does nothing to improve our government or our country. These actions failed prior generations and continue to fail us. Is it any wonder? When we elect “The Lesser of Evils”, that is exactly what we get, more evil, just a lot more smaller doses of it.



Comment on Do Something Different BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Non-Voters





Based on discussions with other voters who refuse to vote, and many others who are considering the shift towards no longer voting, we are a rapidly growing group of concerned citizens who refuse to cast a Vote For “The Lesser of Evils”. The lesser of evils vote is still a vote for evil, only smaller doses of it. We want candidates and issues to vote in favor of, not to select the one we dislike the least. We want issues meant to advance and improve our nation and humanity —not at the expense of our neighbors at home or in other countries.

No. We are not politically blind. We know that when more candidates run for office than there are open seats some are not going to win the election.

Yes. We know that even the best projects benefit some people more than others.

We are disgusted with candidates telling us what their opponents have not done in the past, or will not do in the future. Each candidate evades and avoids enlightening us about their plans for improving our country.

The candidate who takes the effort to present their plans to improve the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that do not involve usurping or abusing the powers granted to the office the candidate seeks, is likely to gain the ear of us non-voters. Far too many candidates tell us and other prospective voters that such-and-such a problem exists and that we need to fix it (or that the candidate intends to fix it). That is the easy part. Most any fool can tell you that some item is broke, simply because it no longer works.

What we want from a candidate who is worth our consideration is simple. If you are going to tell us that we need to get to the other side of the road, you should also include statements about how you plan to get us to that other side.



Comment on Non-Voters BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















An Unjust Authority





Had I not etched into my thinking this phrase from the UNITED STATES Founding Charter,

“A long train of abuses and usurpations...”

I may not have noticed Mr. Obama's statement while pushing his mandatory health-care bill. He compared the mandated national health bill with that of the states mandating auto insurance. I became curious as to what power the people possess, by which they could justly grant to government the power to force another person to buy insurance, or any other product. My curiosity led me to the UNITED STATES Founding Charter. According to the principles outlined within the Founding Charter, we discover these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...”

My question is this. What right do I possess that justly allows me to force you to buy any product?

Correct. I do not possess the personal legal right to force you to buy any product. Logically, many of us, through our government, cannot empower that government to do that which not a single one of us has the legal right to do of our own accord.



Comment on An Unjust Authority BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Founding Principle





Our government, by way of our politicians, successfully abandons and completely disregards the UNITED STATES Founding Principle. If they eventually get us to do the same, our government no longer need fear us.

One of the most common and incorrect claims is that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was founded on religious principles and/or religious freedoms. Such claims usually refer to the original settlement by the colonists during the time of Columbus. Those were not UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Colonies. They were British Colonies, fully under the rule of the Crown of Great Britain.

Another equally incorrect assumption is that of excess taxes. Most of them refer to items like the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party. Both of these event occurred years prior to 1776, which is the year the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was founded (born).

Though religious freedoms and freedom from excess taxes are among the many reasons that lead to the separation of powers, those reasons are not the Founding Principle. When we correctly answer the question as to why the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was founded, we correctly understand the Founding Principle. The UNOTED STATES OF AMERICA was founded for the purpose of establishing a new form of government where the governed people should control the powers of their government.

Getting on the same page, politically speaking anyhow, the UNITED STATES Founding Charter clearly and completely names the Founding Principle upon which the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is founded. It uses these words:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Although the notes of and about each founder are important in understanding an individual founder or one of their Representatives, their individual thoughts ARE NOT the record that names the Principle that created the UNITED STATESOF AMERICA.

Modern paraphrase of the Founding Principle: No level or branch of government shall obtain any power that people subject to its jurisdiction do not specifically grant to it.



Comment on Founding Principle BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















The CHAIN of Political Command





Three individual documents or groups of documents, in order of enactment and in order of importance, detail the standing political chain of command:

  1. The Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA memorializes the creation of a new nation, it allows for the creation of...

  2. The Constitution for the United States of America, which allows for the creation of...

  3. All Just Laws and Treaties: When any of the laws or treaties are unjust, the cycle returns to item number one above.



Comment on The CHAIN of Political Command BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















The Value of Constitutional Conventions





Great fear or at least certain misgivings pop up whenever someone mentions the topic of a Constitutional Convention. Those fears usually stem from misunderstanding our rights and our duties as the governed, especially when it comes to controlling our government. Politicians feed off of our fear and hesitation, which makes them appear all the more powerful. They appear to grow stronger as we delay in the performance of our duty to control them.

Our politicians disregard our rights. We MUST re-educate them. We must re-inform them about the truth regarding the relationship of the powers between us (the governed), and that of our politicians (the government).

Constitutional Conventions are for all levels of government. Such a Constitution for an entire body should be consistent throughout that body so that all its members might better understand the purpose for that body.

Yes, it is true. The people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA created a constitution to control the UNITED STATES government. The people within each State within the UNITED STATES also created constitutions for their respective States so that the people of each State might better control their State government.

Within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we also have county governments within each State as well as city and town governments within each county. Some of our cities are so large that they also possess smaller districts or precincts. With this, the people of each county should create a constitution for their respective county. The people of each city or town should also create constitutions for their respective towns so that they might better pass along their control over their local governments from generation to generation.

You guessed it. The primary purpose for creating written constitutions is so that not only the government but also the governed might better understand and recognize when their governments begin to corrupt the purpose for which the people created it. In this manner, the people might act swiftly so that future generation need not face the headaches and heartaches of breaking the tyranny that grew in their midst.



Comment on The Value of Constitutional Conventions BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]















UNITED STATES Law and Government





All government power and law within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA began in 1776 with the UNITED STATES Founding Charter. It became the lawful Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA once the Founding Generation successfully defended it against the powers of the State of Great Britain.

Unless the Constitution for the United States of America specifically names a foreign nation's government practices and policy, such practices and policy are specifically prohibited to United States government officials. To obtain this understanding, we need only read the list of grievances named in the United States founding Charter in two particular locations. The first of which is the grievance that tells about the King of Great Britain subjecting the people of the Colonies to political jurisdictions foreign to their Constitution. The other is at the beginning and at the end of the Founding Charter where it severs all political ties with the British Crown.



Comment on UNITED STATES Laws and Government BLOG



[Return to Table of Contents]















Writing Law: The Short Course





You already know all you really need to know about writing a law. Unfortunately, you may not know that you already possess this information.

It's probably safe to guess that you at least know what a law is and what a law does. Just in case I'm wrong: A law, generally prohibits a specific activity or product.

The best laws require only three elements:

  1. The best laws require only three elements:

  2. They must precisely name the item or action regulated.

  3. They must eventually support the purpose for the Constitution, which is stated in the Preamble.

You now know all that you need to know about writing and understanding laws, especially those laws that are meant for ease of comprehension. There is no need to complicate matters by trying to figure out which foreign language or ancient customs to apply to those laws.



Comment on Writing Law: The Short Course BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















A Constitution (Generally)





We already learned that the UNITED STATES Founding Charter is not actually a law in the popular context because it really is not enforceable on the governed people who established it. Politicians cannot force the people to make sure that their government is honest. Why would they? We the people, the governed, cannot force each other to make sure our governments remains free of corruption; such an action violates the rights of others to not care. The governed, as a unified force, must constantly defend the principle of the Founding Charter. When a generation ignores this duty, later generations must assume those duties, often times with great risk and great loss. The Founding Charter is the foundation upon which the entire UNITED STATES political Nation rests. Without it, we would not have our UNITED STATES Constitution and we might still fall under the rule of the British Crown.

A Constitution becomes the FORM of a Government. A FORM OF GOVERNMENT is not a law. It is the rule by which all other laws and government powers might justly, rightly, or honorably come to exist. A Constitution, as the form of government, is the By-Laws that describe and define how that government should function. A Constitution is the guide that the People use to measure the successes and failures of their politicians. The people, the governed, are responsible for enforcing the rules of the Constitution, as well as making changes to it when the powers of government need a few adjustments. The people adjust these powers by either adding or removing restrictions on certain government powers.

A Constitution does not govern the people; it governs the government and its politicians. It is a law to regulate the powers of government. A constitution is unlike other laws. The other laws are made to support the Constitution and govern the activities of the people.

When government officials corrupt the powers that the people grant to them, it not only is the right of the people to amend their government's powers, it is their duty.



Comment on A Constitution (Generally) BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]









 







TREASON







All laws, treaties, and government powers previously established that do not violate this Proposed Constitution for the United States of America shall remain in force until such time the People repeal them. Otherwise, all laws, treaties, and government powers that violate the Proposed Constitution shall be automatically repealed.

“Treason against the UNITED STATES, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.”



—Levying War against them.

—Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.

When Government (politicians or political official) violate the Constitution, is it treason?

In a word? Yes.

Levy war against the UNITED STATES. Does that mean an attack against the land? I doubt it. Why would anyone attack land if it weren't for the people who inhabit it. Does it mean an attack against the government? Close. The government is hired by the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to help them protect and preserve their rights. So, if an enemy attacks our honorable, non-tyranny government (if it is at that time), is is an attack against the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

When I took an oath on entering the military, I took an oath to defend the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Foreign enemies are easy. They are people from places, acting on the orders from their government, that are not the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and they attack the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and our way of life —on our soil. The domestic enemies are a bit tougher to grasp.

Who are the domestic enemies?

Domestic enemies are UNITED STATES citizens. One might think that they are the private (non-government) citizen or citizens who try to alter or to abolish our forms of government. This is absolutely not the case. To know this for certain, you must first understand the UNITED STATES Founding Charter. Our Charter not only tells us that altering or abolishing our Form of Government is our right. It strengthens our right to make it our duty to do so when we consider it necessary.

Sure, a small group of non-government citizens could be that domestic enemy if they try to force changes that the overwhelming majority of the rest of the citizens do not want.

The most dangerous attacks from domestic enemies come from those we hire/elect to help us protect our rights. Our greatest danger comes from our government officials when they begin to think and act like they know what is best for us, even when we the people protest.

When the attack comes from within, it is treason. When the attack comes from a foreign government (as opposed to foreign individuals), it is war.

Our Presidents and Congresses declared wars on Crime, Drugs, Lack of Education, Illegal Immigration, and Terror (among others). All the while, our politicians failed to declare war against their treason against the people.

Wars are not always fought with blood-n-guts weapons. The domestic enemies of our government initiate these wars with pens that corrupt our Rule of Law, corrupt our Justice, corrupt our Tranquility, corrupt our general well-being, and destroy our liberty, not only for ourselves but also for our posterity. It is long past time for us to win this war against treason.



Comment on TREASON BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]















Part IV: Solutions









National Identification Cards





We all are sure to come up with a multitude of ways on how our government can, and probably might in the future, abuse a national identification card. With that said, I intend to focus only on the national benefits as they relate to keeping the cost of government minimized.

When community populations remain small where everyone literally knows each other by name and face, there is little need for any type of government issued identification card for instances such as voting or receiving government assistance. On the other hand, when community population increase to the point where any given person within only knows as few as two or three percent of the others within their community the need for some form of government identification card becomes necessary so that the citizens within might minimize the cost of government services, limiting them to the citizen-residents that the government offices serve. When the people restrict government officials use of identification cards to that of qualifying individuals for tax-funded government programs (such as public school attendance, voting, social security, and others) the people maintain better control of their government's spending.

Government issue identification cards, at the national level, allows for the accomplishment of two important objectives. First, is easier cross reference checks to reduce duplicates where an individual might unjustly receive benefits from and vote more than one time in the same election, reduce the the number of dead-people voting and receiving benefits, as well as reducing the availability of voting and benefits to those in the country illegally, as well as locating and identifying suspects regarding criminal activity, among other important benefits. Then, the government administration runs smother and those who wish may retain maximum off-grid living to maintain their privacy with minimal political interference.

The National Identification Card program, as long as it remains voluntary, also eliminates the need for census taking. Each community, to prevent people from casting multiple ballots and to prevent dead people from voting, the ID System is fully public and available via the internet. Access restricted to only that of other card holders and the governments at all levels and branches allows any person to challenge the status of another and to review challenges already satisfied.

Other benefits include searches for missing persons and reduce most fraud. Parents and guardians of children under 18 years old must maintain identification card for their minor children as to whether the children were birthed, adopted, foster, and so on.

As with any tool, the National ID Card remains open to abuses. The idea is to minimize the most likely abuses from the start and to address the less common abuses as they develop. The gun, as a tool, is completely harmless. So too is the ID Card. Unfortunately, government abuses it power regarding the gun all the while ignoring those who abuse the tool.



Comment on National Identification Cards BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Primarily Trash





This two-step environmental financial solution for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stops the waste. Then it responsibly utilizes prior wasted resources to strengthen our nation so that we might become a better example for other countries to do the same for themselves.

As for the present UNITED STATES debt? Simple. The UNITED STATES government re-possesses the role of creating the UNITED STATES currency and then the government lends that money to the banks for them to loan to businesses and individuals. Then, for all the present UNITED STATES government debt, the people establish a small committee to determine the legality of all past, unpaid UNITED STATES government debt. Only the debt that our politicians properly incurred on behalf of the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is government-paid with a new currency created by the new form of national government. All debt not properly charged to the UNITED STATES by our politicians should not be forced upon the people of the UNITED STATES, but should be collected from the assets of the politicians who wrongly approved it.

The government prints the money necessary to fund programs and projects that the people, in their rightful Sovereign authority authorize their government to complete. The initial printing of the needed funds slightly decreases the value of UNITED STATES currency with the presence of the increased volume of money in the market. Then, with the collected taxes (more on this topic later) and the subsequent destruction of some of those tax dollars, the value of the currency increases as the number of dollars in circulation decrease.

Economy, stabilized.

It's time for us to address the issues of unemployment, weaning from foreign- and fossil-fuel dependency, building a stronger economy, stabilizing the housing predicament, and learning from our environment and Natural Law.

To increase spending by the people, the people must possess a means for earning more than the absolute minimum wage required for mere survival. If we the people of the UNITED STATES are unable to find creatively beneficial economic solutions that do not involve perpetual wars, our world leadership role should and will end soon.

The following proposal is merely one constructive means to solve the issues listed.

The solution project is singular in that it works to solve environmental issues. On average, each UNITED STATES citizen generates almost seven pounds of waste daily. With an almost four-hundred million UNITED STATES population, we're talking about just over two-billion pounds of garbage every day. This volume of waste does not take into account commercial, industrial, and government waste. This also does not account for the hundreds of millions of tons of waste already deposited in landfills, from as old as one-hundred years ago to the present that contain a great deal of valuable raw materials for industrial use as well as for fuel-energy. We should not forget of the millions of tons waste generated with our natural disasters, most of which gets buried in landfills.

Well... That puts a major dent in the energy crisis and helps us clean up our environment.

Presently, the largest percentages of waste items end up in either of two polluting industries. One of those industries is our present Waste-to-Energy facilities. They produce electricity from burning trash. These Waste-to-Energy plants contain some impressive exhaust-gas scrubbers to remove some of the toxins from the exhaust but they create rather concentrated, extremely toxic ash that they generally bury in our second major polluting industry, Landfills that are either lined or unlined. Composting household or industrial trash does not produce compost suitable for use in gardens or in grazing cattle for human food.

No matter how soundly we construct our landfills, they are nothing less than toxic time bombs. They are toxic in that we store many types of hazardous and non-hazardous waste inside these landfills. Regardless of our efforts to eliminate toxins from landfills, such efforts remain seriously unsuccessful.

As for the Time-Bomb? Environmental forces like earthquakes, sink-holes, burrowing creatures, tectonic plate shifts, volcanoes, floods, and other such forces all work to weaken the walls of even the best-constructed landfills. As these forces slowly weaken the security of the landfill, the contents continue brewing within. The walls will rupture. Even with the best leak-detection equipment, it may take years to discover the damage and danger that the breach created. This leaves the clean up cost for future generations. The worst and first damage usually presents itself in polluted, toxic, and poisoned water supplies —decreasing one of the human necessities, clean water. How many of you are old enough to remember being able to freely drink from almost any river or stream you happened across?

Though this solution-concept is extremely elementary, Nature has time-tested this concept for at least as many years as Nature has existed. Due to the massive human population, we must streamline and decrease the time it takes Nature to detoxify our wastes.

Environment, improved.

Ideally, each State becomes home to at least one of these facilities with more than one where populations require additional facilities.

Unemployment, decreased.

From construction through operation, the increased population of paid workers spends more money in the local economies, which allows those companies to hire more people to serve the increased demand for those products and services.

Economy, stimulated.

Putting more people to work, many of these workers need new places to live.

Housing crisis, stabilized.

This project streamlines Nature. Nature works much slower in comparison to the volume of waste we humans throw at her. She just is not able to keep us with us in this trash aspect.



Comment on Primarily Trash BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]















Natural Disaster Prevention





Another Solution with Multiple Benefits, much like the Works Progress/Projects Administration (WPA) of the 1930-40's that built Hoover Dam, this solution solves several problems at the same time. We have gas lines that crisscross the country, as well as power lines, oil pipes, television cables, and phone lines. Why not water?

In the fashion of the ancient Nile with all their canals, and Babylonians and later the Romans with their aqueducts, why would we not, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, build water pipes (aqueducts) across the country to serve two purposes? The first is to divert flood waters from the areas threatened with excess rain and run-off. The second is to deliver that needed water to areas running short of their annual rainfall.

As the water from rain is generally clean, though flood waters tend to muddy up the situation a bit, the water is not salty and is good for irrigation and replenishing aquifers in drought-stricken areas. When the water gets diverted before flooding and eroding the area, the transported water remains relatively free of toxins and other undesirable materials.

Other benefits, the most obvious of which, are that of long-term job creations (mostly paid out of the treasuries of the states that are most frequently flooded and the states most frequently drought-stricken. Other states within the Union also should help finance the project to lesser degrees as in the long term it creates less of a drain by not declaring national disasters and rebuilding the stricken areas. With these benefits, the wage earners become better able to afford housing. As they work, they spend money in the local economies where they construct the lines. The UNITED STATES Farmers benefit with the increased supply of fresh water, which allows farmers to grow more produce and grain crops for fuel purposes, as well as algae farms. The fresh water is also used for the processing of the fuels so as to not deplete the local drinking aquifers.



Comment on Natural Disaster Prevention BLOG









[Return to Table of Contents]















Government Assistance Programs





Certain aspects of a civilization must be funded by everyone within that society, thus Social programs, hence Social-ism.

Communities need only fund the lesser-encompassing more-localized projects within a civilization, thus Community programs, hence Commun-ism.

Most of the other aspects of a civilization, that are not yet necessities, and that exist more sporadically throughout a civilization are best solved by enterprising individuals on a supply and demand system, thus Capital, hence Capital-ism.

The above references in no way provide the original meanings of those words. They merely demonstrate how certain projects within any civilization are best paid for and regulated by varying levels of political jurisdictions and private enterprise.

There is no single best form of government or best way to do everything. Civilizations that work and work best are those where people learn from the mistakes of the past to improve their present.

Money is the exchange-hinge upon which all else swings. Money is any commonly used item as a medium of exchange that represents a uniform value. Money might include gold and silver, paper currency, checks, credit cards, or any other forms of value used to exchange merchandise and labor.

Once the government takes control of the currency for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the government prints the money required to fund the government budget and to fund the projects that the people approve, and then the government lends some of the money to the banks that are in the business to make money from the interest they charge for the loans that they approve. The banks that borrow from the government repay those loans with compound interest to the government and the banks individually become responsible for any bad debt that they approve.

The government prints the money required to build, to equip, and initially staff such large projects as the trash solution above. The Small Business Administration continues to finance other businesses. The revenue created from charging compounded interest from both of those loan programs is the first step toward phasing in the following new Social Security system, which remains nationalized.

The new Social Security system works in such a manner that every new legal citizen from birth or naturalization receives a specified dollar deposit into their Social Security Account where it accumulates interest, paid into it at simple interest from the repaid loans described earlier. The persons born after enacting this plan cannot draw from their account until they attain the age of 25 years. At which time, funds become available for specific uses; such as, continued education, housing, and business ventures; all of which go through a simplified approval process to make sure the individual created a sound plan for the use of and repayment of the money.

As for citizens within the Social Security program prior to enacting this proposed system, those who wish to enter this new Social Security program, their contribution amount and benefits are prorated, adjusted in accord with the amount they already paid into Social Security and the amount of benefits they already used. Such adjustments should not decrease the amount of benefits an individual already receives under the present system.

New citizens, through naturalization, would not become eligible for benefits until after their twenty-fourth year as a citizen. The primary reason for the delay is so that each citizen repays most of the original deposit into their account, and that the account builds the required cash reserves during those twenty-four years before an individual begins benefiting from and drawing against their account.

Any un-repaid advance against the person’s Social Security account reduces the amount of available funds from which the individual might draw against in the future. It benefits the individual in the future to repay as much as possible as early as possible. If the person does not use their account through most of their life, the balance from which a person might draw from for retirement increases substantially.

The loans from the government to banks and business require them to repay the loans with compounded interest.



Comment on Government Assistance Programs BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents] 










Revised Social-Individual Security Program

 

1.       Every person pays into the system at a specified percentage rate of their earning.

2.       Those earnings are held in an account, under the person’s name, in a bank, in the community where the person holds their primary residence for voting purposes.

3.       The funds are invested in local businesses where the account-holder resides and meets periodically to discuss business within which to invest as start-ups and/or expansions. (Sort of along the lines of the T.V. series Shark Tank combined with the Micro-Business Lending program where investors invest any amount from a few dollars to millions of dollars) in local businesses as either new local businesses, expansion of local businesses, attract new and expansion businesses to the area. This also allows people to borrow small amounts of money for hobby-type businesses that have grown into major enterprises.

4.       95% of the interest earned is divided among the accounts participating in a given venture. 5% of the interest earned goes to the local bank for services to administration of the accounts. Repayment schedules are set up as in any other type of loan or mortgage scenario with principle and/or interest payments with or without balloon payments, etc.

5.       When a person moves from one community to another their total account transfers with them. All future deposits owed to their account from previous investments, that have not yet been paid, will be paid to their account as per usual, and forwarded to the accountholder’s present account.

6.       The purpose for the accounts is primarily for the individual accountholder and the days and times when they can no longer earn their own living. All funds from their account, as well as future earning (not yet paid but still owed) are transferable after death to whomever the original accountholder may designate. While alive, the accountholder may use the funds or the interest by also investing in themselves for buying houses, businesses, education, medical care, and emergencies. In these personal self-to-self loans, the accountholder may also loan to themselves at greatly discounted rates.

7.       This program encourages the greatest level of self-sufficiency within the individual accountholders as well as encouraging social unity by working together to invest in other people’s ideas, businesses, home-buying, etc. It also gets and keeps the government out of the picture, except for squashing fraudulent activity.













[Return to Table of Contents]















Taxation





To simplify the tax system, I propose that all taxes come from any one or combination of the following sources, in addition to the interest gained from loaning new currency to the banks and businesses:

  1. Sales Tax: All businesses collect a sales tax on all items sold. Questions arise with regard to residential yard sales and flea markets. Flea Markets are generally a commercial activity. Yard sales are primarily residential, up to a point. Local communities and states might best define at what point yard sales become a business and become taxable.

  2. Real-estate sales tax would replace the existing property tax. The new real-estate taxes would tax sales at the larger amount of either the Fair Market Value or the Actual Selling Price. In this way, a person is able to transfer their property to a family member for $1.00 and pay the sales tax on the Fair Market Value. To the contrary, if a person sells at double Fair Market Value, they pay tax based on the Actual Sales Price.

  3. Inheritance tax: Inheritance is an unearned transfer of wealth to the recipient from another person. When the inheritance is not current cash but is property (such as, old coins or old currency, stocks, bonds, jewelry, etc.) the tax valuation is based on Fair Market Value. When the inheritance is current cash, the tax valuation is based on Face Value.

  4. An alternate tax suggestion: Tax reform, single tax on money which constitutes a transfer of value from one person to another, which includes items of value given as gifts, inheritance, real estate, or any other item that is bought, or sold. This excludes reasonable salaries. An example of reasonable upper-limit salaries might top at 85% of the wages and personal benefits that the President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA earns for the honorable performance of his duties as President.

    This does not negate private income from exceeding that which the president earns, just that the excess over the 85% mark is taxed as a usual transfer of value.

    Labor itself should not be taxable. Taxing labor tends to reduce individual incentive toward production.

    Just so that we remain clear, this does not include transfers from one of person A's personal wage accounts to another of person A's personal wage accounts




Each of the taxes listed above should include the percentage of the tax due to each appropriate level of government jurisdiction.



Comment on Taxation BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]

















Part V: A New Form of Government









About the Proposed Constitution





When we the people, the keepers of Liberty, fail to properly maintain our government, others move in to use it for treachery; promising false hope so that they might steal the fortunes of our Liberty to freely exercise our rights.

Far too many of us citizens do not understand our most important right; our right to alter or to abolish our forms of governments when it becomes necessary for us to do so; let alone understanding the true power of that right.

When defective, government leaves the governed few options; modify the forms of that government, if possible; when necessary, replace it. That, or learn to live with that corrupted government.

It is our duty, as the governed, to inspect every aspect of our government frequently and thoroughly for signs of corruption. When found, we must act swiftly to correct it. Should we, or our posterity, fail our Duty —our neglect allows political corruption to ravage and destroy our nation from within.

In the united words of our Foundering Generation, from the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, they instruct us as to when it becomes necessary to institute new forms of government. It is that long train of abuses and usurpation that requires our immediate action.



Comment on About the Proposed Constitution BLOG





To unite consists of more than merely agreeing.





To unite requires working together for a common objective.









[Return to Table of Contents]















The Need for a New Form of Government





Aside from the numerous political abuses named within this guide, our present form of government, via its politicians, is not likely to approve projects that might improve our nation and the lives of our people. If they did, what else would they campaign against? Its present history is all the evidence we need. Therefore, in order to create the prior suggestions listed in this guide, as well as others, we the people must institute a New Form of Government.



Comment on The Need for a New Form of Government BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















PROPOSED:
Constitution for the Government of the UNITED STATES









Preamble





We the Citizens of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general well-being and strength of our Union, do encourage self-sufficiency with social responsibility, do mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Taking responsibility for our actions and for our government, we reserve to ourselves the power to recall any government official who usurps or abuses the powers granted by us, we do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Comment on Preamble BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Article 1: UNITED STATES Founding Documents




Section 1: The UNITED STATES Founding Charter, 1776





For ease of reading and for reference, the numbered paragraphs replace many of the original long dashes. Most of the capitalized letters appear in lower-case. Many of the misspelled words, corrected. The following thirty-seven paragraphs result from comparing copies of the signed hand-written Declaration with copies of the published typeset broadsheet. All punctuation should remain as originally written.

  1. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

  2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  3. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

  4. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

  5. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

  6. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

  7. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

  8. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

  9. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

  10. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

  11. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

  12. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

  13. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

  14. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

  15. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

  16. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

  17. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.

  18. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

  19. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  20. For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

  21. For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

  22. For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

  23. For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

  24. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

  25. For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

  26. For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies:

  27. For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

  28. For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

  29. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

  30. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

  31. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

  32. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

  33. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.

  34. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a Free People.

  35. Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

  36. We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.

  37. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.


Comment on The UNITED STATES Founding Charter BLOG

This is the End of the Unanimous Declaration of 1776. The signatures of the representatives for the Founding Generation, excluded.

The 1776 Founding Charter for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stands of its own accord. Its inclusion in this Constitution is so that future generations might remember and understand the grant of power from the people to their government. In this manner, we prevent future generations from making our mistake, that of not recognizing a tyranny when it forms on our watch, right under our noses. The purpose for making a copy of the Founding Charter part of this Constitution is that it might strengthen the resolve of the people to retain their rightful control over their government.








[Return to Table of Contents]





Section 2: Treaty of Paris (1783)

In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.



It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory Intercourse between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal Advantages and mutual Convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony; and having for this desirable End already laid the Foundation of Peace & Reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the Commissioners empowered on each Part, which Articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until Terms of Peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain & France, and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly: and the treaty between Great Britain & France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty & the United States of America, in Order to carry into full Effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the Tenor thereof, have constituted & appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his Part, David Hartley, Esqr., Member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their Part, - stop point - John Adams, Esqr., late a Commissioner of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; - stop point - Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late President of Congress and Chief Justice of the state of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United States at the Court of Madrid; to be Plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the Present Definitive Treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full Powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following Articles.



Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.



Article 2:

And that all Disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their Boundaries, viz.; from the Northwest Angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that Angle which is formed by a Line drawn due North from the Source of St. Croix River to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost Head of Connecticut River; Thence down along the middle of that River to the forty-fifth Degree of North Latitude; From thence by a Line due West on said Latitude until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy; Thence along the middle of said River into Lake Ontario; through the Middle of said Lake until it strikes the Communication by Water between that Lake & Lake Erie; Thence along the middle of said Communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said Lake until it arrives at the Water Communication between that lake & Lake Huron; Thence along the middle of said Water Communication into the Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said Lake to the Water Communication between that Lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior Northward of the Isles Royal & Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; Thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the Water Communication between it & the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; Thence through the said Lake to the most Northwestern Point thereof, and from thence on a due West Course to the river Mississippi; Thence by a Line to be drawn along the Middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the Northernmost Part of the thirty-first Degree of North Latitude, South, by a Line to be drawn due East from the Determination of the Line last mentioned in the Latitude of thirty-one Degrees of the Equator to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouche; Thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; Thence straight to the Head of Saint Mary's River, and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean. East, by a Line to be drawn along the Middle of the river Saint Croix, from its Mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its Source, and from its Source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands, which divide the Rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all Islands within twenty Leagues of any Part of the Shores of the United States, and lying between Lines to be drawn due East from the Points where the aforesaid Boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one Part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such Islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said Province of Nova Scotia.



Article 3:

It is agreed that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the Right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other Places in the Sea, where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the Inhabitants of the United States shall have Liberty to take Fish of every Kind on such Part of the Coast of Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island) And also on the Coasts, Bays & Creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's Dominions in America; and that the American Fishermen shall have Liberty to dry and cure Fish in any of the unsettled Bays, Harbors, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure Fish at such Settlement without a previous Agreement for that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors of the Ground.



Article 4:

It is agreed that Creditors on either Side shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full Value in Sterling Money of all bona fide Debts heretofore contracted.



Article 5:

It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respective States to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British Subjects; and also of the Estates, Rights, and Properties of Persons resident in Districts in the Possession on his Majesty's Arms and who have not borne Arms against the said United States. And that Persons of any other Description shall have free Liberty to go to any Part or Parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve Months unmolested in their Endeavors to obtain the Restitution of such of their Estates – Rights & Properties as may have been confiscated. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States a Reconsideration and Revision of all Acts or Laws regarding the Premises, so as to render the said Laws or Acts perfectly consistent not only with Justice and Equity but with that Spirit of Conciliation which on the Return of the Blessings of Peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States that the Estates, Rights, and Properties of such last mentioned Persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any Persons who may be now in Possession the Bona fide Price (where any has been given) which such Persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said Lands, Rights, or Properties since the Confiscation.



And it is agreed that all Persons who have any Interest in confiscated Lands, either by Debts, Marriage Settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful Impediment in the Prosecution of their just Rights.



Article 6:

That there shall be no future Confiscations made nor any Prosecutions commenced against any Person or Persons for, or by Reason of the Part, which he or they may have taken in the present War, and that no Person shall on that Account suffer any future Loss or Damage, either in his Person, Liberty, or Property; and that those who may be in Confinement on such Charges at the Time of the Ratification of the Treaty in America shall be immediately set at Liberty, and the Prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.



Article 7:

There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between his Britanic Majesty and the said States, and between the Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other, wherefore all Hostilities both by Sea and Land shall from henceforth cease: All prisoners on both Sides shall be set at Liberty, and his Britanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any Destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other Property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his Armies, Garrisons & Fleets from the said United States, and from every Post, Place and Harbour within the same; leaving in all Fortifications, the American Artillery that may be therein: And shall also Order & cause all Archives, Records, Deeds & Papers belonging to any of the said States, or their Citizens, which in the Course of the War may have fallen into the hands of his Officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper States and Persons to whom they belong.



Article 8:

The Navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.



Article 9:

In case it should so happen that any Place or Territory belonging to great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the Arms of either from the other before the Arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without Difficulty and without requiring any Compensation.



Article 10:

The solemn Ratifications of the present Treaty expedited in good & due Form shall be exchanged between the contracting Parties in the Space of Six Months or sooner if possible to be computed from the Day of the Signature of the present Treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned their Ministers Plenipotentiary have in their Name and in Virtue of our Full Powers, signed with our Hands the present Definitive Treaty, and caused the Seals of our Arms to be affixed thereto.



Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.


Comment on The Treaty of Paris (1783) BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]







Article 2: Summary of the Founding Charter





The UNITED STATES Founding Charter



  1. Is a legal document that...

(a) ...separated the political powers of Great Britain from those of the Colonies.

(b) ...created the UNITED STATES out of former British Colonies.

(c) ...declares that the consent of the governed creates honorable governments.

(d) ...names the people's most important right and duty.

(e) ...defines representative power.

(f) ...defines citizenship responsibility.

(g) ...defines a tyranny.



  1. It is a letter to...

a) ...the King of Great Britain.

(b) ...the world.

(c) ...the people of the then-new UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

(d) ...the Founders' posterity —us.

(e) ...to all whom might govern.



  1. It is a treasure map that...

(a) ...identifies our national treasure as that of our rights and our duty to protect and preserve our rights.

(b) ...identifies all of us as our treasure's guardians.

(c) ...lets us know how we might lose our treasure.

(d) ...tells us how we might re-acquire our treasure when we lose it.

(e) ...warns patriots of potential dangers.



  1. It summarizes human nature and the nature of government, as it identifies...

(a) ...human nature to tolerate abuses.

(b) ...rights common to all humans.

(c) ...government's tendency toward tyranny.

(d) ...how adversity motivates us into action.

(e) ...how and why we should constantly exercise control over our government.



The Treaty of Paris (1783)

  1. The most important aspect of the Treaty of Paris is that it legally acknowledges and confirms that the United States, which were created out of the British Colonies, are Free and Independent States.



Comment on Summary of the Founding Charter BLOG





[Return to Table of Contents]

















Article 3: Definitions





The following definitions, when the people enact this Constitution, shall replace those in prior enacted laws that the people re-instate, as well as all laws enacted hereafter. Consistency in our laws assures to the people equality in justice. All laws not re-instated shall be unenforceable and void of power.



  1. Citizen: A citizen is any person who legally resides within and maintains permanent residency within the political jurisdiction of any Nation-State. Citizenship with more than one Nation-State shall not exist under this Constitution. The people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible for enforcing this Constitution when our government fails to work within the powers granted to it and the restrictions that the people place on its political powers. This group also includes natural-born, native-born, and naturalized citizens.

    Comment on Citizen BLOG

  2. Citizen, natural-born: A person who is born within the political jurisdiction of the Nation-State where both the mother and the father were also born.

    Comment on Citizen, natural-born BLOG

  3. Citizen, native-born: A person, who regardless of the country in which they are born, shall retain the citizenship of the mother and/or father. Where disagreement occurs between the parents regarding the citizenship of the child, the child shall enjoy the citizenship of the mother.

    Comment on Citizen, native-born BLOG

  4. Citizen, naturalized: A person who applies for citizenship within a Nation-State and is accepted.

    Comment on Citizen, naturalized BLOG

  5. Crime: If the Legislative Branch creates a law, ordinance, or other prohibition of any action that carries with it any form of penalty; committing that prohibited act is a crime.

    Comment on Crime BLOG

  6. Legislation: The means by which to regulate the activity, property, or finances of the people via political power.

    Comment on Legislation BLOG

  7. Nation-State: Is a politically independent State or a union of more than one politically independent States.

    Comment on Nation-State BLOG

  8. People: The Unified People are the sovereign power responsible for controlling their government. As individuals, the laws enacted in accord with this Constitution govern each person.

    Comment on People BLOG

  9. Political Jurisdiction: Is the geographical area that a government office and level of government serves. Otherwise, the city, town, or village wherein a person maintains their permanent legal residence is the smallest political jurisdiction. Counties, States, and National Unions are progressively larger political jurisdictions.

    Comment on Political Jurisdiction BLOG

  10. Public Trust: Shall consist of all legislation that the citizens justly enacted in accord with this Constitution that is appropriate to the political jurisdiction that the elected official serves, as well as campaign promises that the official made while campaigning.

    Comment on Public Trust BLOG

  11. Representative: Any person elected by the people into the executive and the judicial offices in all levels of government. Others who represent the people, but are not elected, include all those whom elected officials appoint, hire, or contract with to perform work authorized by the people. All those who represent the People are bound by oath to uphold this Constitution in the defense of the governed and the rights of the governed (whether the governed is a citizen or non-citizen) within this National Union.

    Comment on Representative BLOG

  12. Treason: Treason consists of one person or group of people levying war against the people of any political jurisdiction bound under this Constitution wherein they live, or in adhering to their enemies by giving them aid and/or comfort. Betrayal of a public trust shall also constitute treason. No person shall be convicted of treason unless; on the testimony of two witnesses to the same act who testify to the treason in an open and public court before an impartial jury; or on long-form confession by the accused while in the presence of a jury in an open and public court. All references to a jury within this Constitution shall be the same as detailed within the Judicial Branch later in this Constitution.

    Comment on Treason BLOG

  13. Tyrant, Tyranny: Any government official or political office that incorporates one or more of the actions listed in the grievances outlined in the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Comment on Tyrant, Tyranny BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 4: Legislative Branch





  1. The Rule of Law is government according to enacted legislation. Enacted legislation in honorable governments originates via the authority of the unified voice of the governed people.

    Comment on The Rule of Law BLOG

  2. Legislative Origins: Any citizen may initiate legislative proposals. However, all legislative votes shall begin in the First House of the smallest level of political jurisdictions (cities, towns, or villages), regardless of the larger political jurisdictions that the proposed legislation intends to govern.

    Comment on Legislative Origins BLOG

  3. Holder of Legislative Power for the UNITED STATES and every state, county, and city, town, or village shall reside with the citizens, according to the rules of this Article, who collectively shall enact all legislation, determine the fair penalty for punishing offenders, as well as provide the funding necessary for implementation.

    We require people to take a test before they obtain a license for owning and operating guns for safety. We require people to take tests in order to obtain a license for operating motor vehicles on public roads.

    Why is it that we do not require a test before licensing people for voting? Aside from being citizen and resident, the people should be required read and comprehend the nation's common language before casting a vote. Or should the nation be required to publish a ballot in every know language? If not, how secure are our rights when voters are not required to understand that for which they may cast a vote, which may take away the very rights from the voter that the voter holds dearest?

    Comment on Holder of Legislative Power BLOG

  4. The First House shall consist of all citizens eligible to vote, who attained eighteen years of age and older, as well as those under eighteen who are legally emancipated minors and members of the Armed Forces of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This excludes individuals serving any portion of a sentence for any crime of which they were duly convicted. Each political jurisdiction shall determine the length of residency required for eligibility to vote on all issues and candidates for that political jurisdiction.

    Comment on The First House BLOG

  5. The Second House consists of the actual number of political jurisdictions according to the number of cities, towns, and villages within a county; the number of counties within a state; the states in a National Union; and progressively into each larger political jurisdiction. Each lower-level political jurisdiction shall have one vote in the Second House of the next-larger jurisdiction to which it belongs.

    Comment on The Second House BLOG

  6. Legislation, Required Elements: A Free Society limits legislation to that purpose which prevents one person or group of people from violating the rights of another person or group who are not harming or causing harm to another or the property of another. Harm shall consist only of tangible and physical harm.

(a) All legislation shall contain a preamble that identifies what part of this Constitution that authorizes the legislation and how the proposed legislation improves the condition of the union.

(b) Legislation that does not specifically state a penalty for punishing violators or does not specify the manner by which to fund it that legislation shall be unenforceable and is void.

(c) To advance legislation into progressively larger political jurisdictions, the legislation passed within each smaller level political jurisdiction shall be word-for-word identical, including the penalty and manner of funding.

(d) All proposed legislation shall contain only one clearly defined issue.

(e) All proposed legislation shall be worded in such a manner that a —YES– vote favors the proposed change.

(f) All proposed legislation shall contain a fixed date by which the proposal shall be enactment, as well as a specific date for automatic expiration. If not enacted by the deadline, it shall automatically fail. If not re-enacted prior to the expiration date it shall be discarded as if actively repealed.

Comment on Legislation, Required Elements BLOG

  1. Checks and Balances: By requiring proposed legislation to attain two-thirds or greater vote in both Houses, prior to enactment, the larger population centers are unable to control the smaller, which also prevents the more-numerous smaller population centers from controlling the larger-but-fewer. As for legislation enacted in only one town, only the people of that town shall fund and enforce it.

    Comment on Checks and Balances BLOG

  2. Equal Media Time: Each publication or broadcasting business shall independently determine the space and/or time allotments within their respective coverage area, which must be the same for each candidate running for the same office during the same election. This also requires equal time and/or space for both sides of legislative proposals.

    Comment on Equal Media Time BLOG

  3. Debates: The political jurisdiction holding the election shall sponsor question-and-answer forums and debates, which must include all registered candidates who are willing to participate. Candidates unwilling to participate shall be removed from the ballot and not allowed to continue that election cycle.

(a) In order to provide equal opportunity to attend each forum, the largest political jurisdiction holding the election shall organize and fund the forum. It shall at least provide ground transportation for each candidate to and from the closest city hall office that serves the candidate's official place of residence and the location where the forums take place.

(b) The jurisdiction sponsoring the debates shall solicit questions from the people within the jurisdiction that the office serves.

(c) The moderator shall organize the questions according to topic, then ask the question(s) that best solicit information on that topic. During each forum, the moderator shall allow equal time for each candidate to respond to every question asked. The time allotment might differ from question to question. The candidates shall not hear the responses of the other candidates until after the moderator asks all the questions in this first half of the forum. Candidates, in the second half of the forum, may challenge and debate other candidates on specific topics, with the moderator also timing the debates. Each phase shall run until complete, in marathon fashion, with about a ten-minute break every hour.

(d) All question-and-answer sessions shall be video and audio recorded for broadcasting over radio, television, and Internet, and/or any communication systems that the people might amend into this Constitution. The recorded audio/video footage from the question and answer forums and debates, in their entirety, shall also be commercially available for sale to the public. The proceeds from selling copies of the recorded forums and debates, as well as revenue from selling advertising for the ten-minute breaks during broadcasting and publishing shall help fund the costs of providing these forums.

Comment on Debates BLOG

  1. Elimination Voting: Should this election process encourage an unusually large number of candidates, several elimination-voting rounds shall occur. Sixty days after each round of question and answer debate forum, an elimination voting shall take place. In order to reduce the field of candidates after each voting round, the top twenty percent of candidates receiving the highest vote-count shall advance to the next round of question-and-answer forums, debates, and voting until one candidate (the required number of candidates) to fill the vacant seat(s), acquires two-thirds or more votes.

    Comment on Elimination Voting BLOG

  2. Polling Station Hours: All polling stations within the same political jurisdiction that span only one time zone shall open and close at the same time so that they remain open during the same twenty-four hour period. For political jurisdictions that include multiple time zones, all polling stations shall open according to the hour of the earliest time zone and shall close according to the hour of the latest time zone so that all polling stations shall remain open the same twenty-four hours, plus one hour for each additional time zone.

    Comment on Polling Station Hours BLOG

  3. Method of Voting: Voters shall use hand-marked paper ballots, requiring an ink mark in the appropriate box for all candidate elections and all legislative proposals.

(a) All ballots shall remain in public view from the time the voter places it into a transparent tumbler, through the time that the final vote tally yields the same totals three consecutive times, certified complete by the official vote counters, and not less than twenty-four hours after the legally allotted time to contest the vote count ends.

(b) To save time in the vote counting and to ensure enough ballots are in the tumbler to provide voter privacy; removal of ballots from the tumbler for vote counting shall begin no earlier than one hour after the first ballot enters the tumbler during the voting cycle. One of the official vote-counters shall draw the ballots from the tumbler in public view, at random, one at a time, and place each ballot on an overhead projector so that the official vote-counters and the public may record the results. This allows the public and the candidates credibly to challenge the official count. See Broadcasting-Publishing Vote Results below.

(c) The natural hazard of absentee and early ballots is their openness to fraud. These ballots are not in public view the entire time after the ballot is marked and submitted. To reduce the potential for such fraud, each absentee or early voter shall have their ballot notarized at the time of mailing or upon delivery in person to the local town office so their name may be marked as having already voted.

Comment on Method of Voting BLOG

  1. The Tally-Sheet information shall include...

(a) ...the total number of registered voters.

(b) ...the number of registered voters who are incarcerated or serving community service during voting day.

(c) ...the total qualified to vote, which is the total registered to vote minus those incarcerated or on community service on voting day.

(d) ...the total number of absentee ballots cast.

(e) ...the total number of early ballots cast.

(f) ...the total number of ballots cast in person.

(g) ...the combined total number of ballots cast, which is the total absentee ballots added to the total early ballots, added to the in-person ballots.

(h) ...the combined total number of eligible voters who did not cast a ballot, which is the number of total qualified voters minus the total number ballots cast.

(i) ...the total number of votes cast in favor of the legislative proposal.

(j) ...the total number of votes for each candidate, whether printed on the ballot or written in by a voter (even if the name written in is a cartoon character).

(k) ...the number of vote marks that extend into more than one box, which shall count in the final tally as though the mark was not there.

(l) ...the number of ballots cast that do not have a mark next to the proposal or next to any candidate's name for that office.

(m) ...the combined total number of ballots where the vote-marks extended into more than one box added to the total ballots cast that do not have a mark next to either the proposal or next to any candidate's name for that office.

(n) The official vote-counters shall transmit the official tally-sheets from their voting precinct to the appropriate executive office of each next-larger political jurisdiction for cumulative tallying; eventually ending in the largest appropriate political jurisdiction.

(o) If the proposed legislation or candidate does not receive the minimum-required two-thirds vote, as set forth in this Constitution, the proposal shall not pass and/or the candidate shall not take office.

Comment on The Tally-Sheet BLOG

  1. Broadcasting-Publishing Vote Results: The media may broadcast and publish the total number of and/or the percentage of total voters who cast ballots as of a certain time during an election. They shall not broadcast or publish the actual vote count, exit poll predictions, the numbers or percentages of party voters, or predicted or actual voting results in any other form until twenty-four hours after the polls officially close. Early broadcasting or publishing of the actual or predicted vote-results constitutes a felony.

    Comment on Broadcasting-Publishing Vote Results BLOG

  2. Enacting Legislation:

(a) All legislative voting begins in the First House with the people in the smallest-level political jurisdictions (cities, towns, and villages) regardless of the level of political jurisdiction that the proposed legislation might eventually govern.

(b) Proposed legislation passes in the First House of the smallest-level political jurisdiction when two-thirds or more of the qualified voters vote YES on the proposal.

(c) The Second House Vote For each city, town, or village shall be YES when two-thirds or more of the qualified voters of the First House of that city, town, or village approve the proposed legislation.

(d) The First House Vote For the County shall be determined by adding all the First House votes from each of the next-smaller level political jurisdictions within that county.

(e) The Second House vote in the County shall be YES when at least two-thirds of the Second House votes from the next-smaller level political jurisdictions within the county vote YES.

(f) The First House tally-sheet and Second House vote tallies from each lower level political jurisdiction shall accompany a copy of each legislative proposal, whether it passes or not. The lower level jurisdiction transmits this package to the next-larger level political jurisdiction.

(g) Each next-larger level jurisdiction’s executive office responsible for accumulating, tracking, coordinating, and adding the votes regarding lower-level legislation then determines whether that legislation passes in that political jurisdiction, according to the rules of this Constitution.

(h) Once each political jurisdiction's official processes a legislative package, they send the package to the next-larger political jurisdiction's office within the Union for them to process.

(i) Each political jurisdiction keeps a copy of the legislative package for their records as they send the package to the next-larger political jurisdiction.

(j) When the proposed legislation passes in both Houses of the next-larger jurisdiction, that larger jurisdiction shall send copies of the legislation to all lower levels to inform them that the legislation now affects that entire political jurisdiction.

(k) This legislative process advances into each progressively larger political jurisdiction as detailed above.

(l) If the legislation remains unchanged as it advances into each larger jurisdiction, the people of the smaller jurisdictions need not vote on the issue with each advance. If the legislation changes, the smaller jurisdictions must vote on the changes, provided that the proposed legislation has not already passed in both Houses of the larger political jurisdiction without including the vote count of those jurisdictions that did not vote on the changes.

(m) In order to enact proposed legislation to a specific political jurisdiction, both Houses of the named jurisdiction must attain two-thirds or more YES votes. Without the required two-thirds majority, the proposal fails and it is not enforceable in the lower-level jurisdictions that passed it. If the lower levels enact the proposed legislation with a stipulation to allow its enforcement, even if it failed to pass in the larger jurisdiction, only then is it enforceable in that jurisdiction that passes the proposal. To enact legislation to a specific level political jurisdiction, the proposed legislation shall state a specific date by which to enact the proposal. If not enacted by that set date, it automatically fails.

(n) This process does not guarantee or require that every citizen approve proposed legislative. It promotes the greatest participation by the people to improve each proposal before it advances into each larger political jurisdiction.

(o) This process eliminates the rule of the few over the many, where traditionally the majority of as few as fifteen percent of the total eligible voters who cast a ballot rule all others, or where indirect legislative representatives migrate toward refusing to represent the people while they focus on their personal greed and gain.

Comment on Enacting Legislation BLOG

  1. Electing Officials:

(a) For every election, or run-off elimination election, a single ballot shall issue with every candidate listed. Candidate names shall appear on the ballot in the order that each candidate, for the office sought, draws a number from a hat at the end of each question and answer debate forum. Ballots shall not contain any political party affiliation for any candidate whomsoever.

(b) The People collectively shall directly elect the executive and judicial officers for their respective political jurisdictions.

(c) In addition to receiving more votes than any other candidate receives for the same office, the candidate who takes office must also receive more votes than the combined total of the qualified voters who did not cast a ballot for that office added to those who left the space blank. In this manner, the people are not obligated to Vote For the lesser of evils.

(d) In cases where no candidate receives more votes than the total voters who did not cast a ballot added to voters who left the space blank, the executive and/or judicial officer shall order a new election. The new ballot shall list all new candidates; excluding the candidate names printed on the original ballot, but may include names of write-in candidates who accept a nomination.

(e) The elected officials, within their branch and political jurisdiction shall work together to successfully carry out the duties approved by law while also working on the plans and promises they proposed during their campaigns. The voters approve candidate promises up to the point that those proposals do not conflict with already-enacted legislation. Such approval allows officials to develop plans concerning the amount and manner for funding and implementation of the promised projects; which, regardless of form, requires additional legislative approval before implementation.

Comment on Electing Officials BLOG

  1. Standard Term Limits shall consist of two, six-year terms, with a person serving in office no longer than twelve years. Ideally, but not required, the people might promote, via election, their best-qualified leaders from within the smaller political jurisdictions into the larger political jurisdictions in both the executive and judicial offices.

    Comment on Standard Term Limits BLOG

  2. Heirloom Offices: At least three generations should separate other family members who served in the same political office, jurisdiction, and level of government that the candidate seeks. This reduces the ease by which political office and power becomes a family heirloom. The two-thirds vote requirement helps reduce the likelihood of political office and power becoming a family heirloom.

    Comment on Heirloom Offices BLOG

  3. Grant of Authority: Upon election, executive and judicial officers obtain the legal authority to act in the name of the people within their respective political jurisdictions but only so far as the enacted legislation permits. An election shall not automatically grant authority for an official to enforce or otherwise complete campaign promises that conflict with enacted legislative authority. Without legislative authority, elected officials risk the likelihood of impeachment and/or prosecution for treason against the people. The people may grant or revoke any political powers via their legislative authority, which shall become effective upon enactment. This alters the powers of any official in office at the time of enactment.

    Comment on Grant of Authority BLOG

  4. Emergencies: The executive and/or judicial officers of the affected political jurisdiction may call an emergency legislative session for situations in cases where existing legislation does not already grant to them the required authority to resolve those situations the Executive Officer claims is an emergency. If a politician abuses this Emergencies clause, the people reserve the right to remove that politician from office, and/or to nullify unjust acts, resolutions, contracts, etc. initiated by those politicians.

    Comment on Emergencies BLOG

  5. Impeachments and Recalls:

(a) The people shall hold the sole power of impeachment and recall.

(b) Petitions that circulate within the affected area shall state, in less than 200 words, the cause(s) for the impeachment or recall action, the desired remedy sought, and obtain signatures from at least ten percent of the qualified voters for the purpose of ordering a special election to remove the named official, and/or contract, or other acts where the official unjustly obligated the people.

(c) The signed petitions shall be submitted to the executive officer of the next-larger political jurisdiction; or if already at the largest political jurisdiction, submitted to the chief officer of the government branch not named in the petition.

(d) Petition signatures shall be verified within ten days of original submission, and the emergency ballot issued for that political jurisdiction within thirty days of original submission.

(e) The Recall Ballot, in addition to the 200-word cause for removal, shall also provide rebuttal space of up to 200 words from the official subject to the recall. The official will state the reason(s) for their actions and why they feel they should not be recalled.

(f) The recall and impeachment vote shall hold to the same two-thirds standard as that required for electing candidates.

Comment on Impeachments and Recalls BLOG

  1. Repeal and Amendments shall not become effective until the required two-thirds vote of both Houses of the political jurisdiction to which the legislation elevated also approves the proposed amendment or repeal.

    Comment on Repeal and Amendments BLOG

  2. Other Powers: The people, via their legislative process shall have the power through the National Union to declare war, approve treaties, and approve trade agreements with other Nation States. The appropriate political jurisdictions will approve taxation in both the budgeted amounts and the manner collected, determine the wages and benefits for elected officials, grant pardons, and all other duties as legislators of right may do according to the rules of this Constitution.

    Comment on Other Powers BLOG

  3. Risks: All citizens collectively risk their lives, fortunes, and/or honor in time of war. Citizens of the National Union shall be the ones who decide what wars to initiate, join, or continue defending.

    Comment on Risks BLOG

  4. Benefits:

(a) The people of the cities, towns, villages, and upward, become aware of legislation as it happens, because it works its way up from smaller jurisdictions into the larger.

(b) This legislative system employs far fewer people in government offices and agencies by abolishing the elected legislative branch in all levels of political jurisdictions. It eliminates the entire cost of legislative staff and most of the operating expenses while also abolishing wasteful political spending. This single step redirects trillions of otherwise wasted tax dollars into worthy projects and programs, as well as allowing taxpayers to retain a greater percentage of their wages and financial reserves.

(c) Legislation shall be written for the people to understand without the need for legal translators. This legislative system reduces court overload from people who violate laws that they either do not know about or do not understand.

(d) Legislation slowly advances into larger political jurisdictions, which allows for improvements to occur in the lower levels where it is relatively inexpensive to implement. When starting at the national level, an otherwise minor glitch might cost billions of dollars to correct.

(e) The requirement for attaining two-thirds or more of the qualified votes prevents smaller groups from passing special-interest legislation behind closed doors. It requires the greatest degree of publicity and voter participation-approval before proposed legislation or a candidate becomes official.

Comment on Benefits BLOG

  1. National Voting Holidays: For National Voting, there shall be four days set aside as national holidays. These days shall replace four other national holidays.

Comment on National Voting Holidays BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 5: Executive Branch





  1. Qualifications:

(a) Qualifications for the local, county, and state political jurisdictions shall be as the people of each jurisdiction dictate within their respective legislative approvals.

(b) The President and the Vice President of the UNITED STATES shall be at least thirty-five years of age; a natural-born citizen; and must have lived in the UNITED STATES the fourteen consecutive years immediately prior to their election. No candidate for the office of President shall share citizenship with any other Nation-State not yet united under this Constitution.

(c) At the time of registering as a candidate for any office, regardless of the level or branch of political jurisdiction, candidates shall provide proof of their qualification for the office sought. This proof shall be limited only to what enacted legislation requires. That proof shall be available for public inspection. For proof of age and citizenship, the candidate shall provide an official copy of their certificate of live birth, and/or naturalization papers.

Comment on Qualifications BLOG

  1. Duties:

(a) Without regard as to social-economic class and to ensure social stability, the executive officers, without bias, shall enforce all laws, work to put into effect approved programs, and complete approved projects that do not conflict with this Constitution. Where conflict occurs, the Executive officer shall consult with the Judicial via the jury system. If the Jury finds that conflict exists, they shall recommend to the Legislative Branch such amendments or repeal as they consider appropriate. The legislation in question shall remain enforceable until such time the Legislative Branch amends, repeals, or desires to make no changes.

(b) No executive officer shall possess any legislative powers.

(c) The executive title and other duties shall be those defined by legislation appropriate to the political jurisdiction served, as well as campaign promises made by the executive officer that do not conflict with enacted legislation.

(d) The President of the UNITED STATES, as Commander in Chief of the UNITED STATES Armed Forces, shall defend the UNITED STATES, territories, and possessions against attack by the government(s) of another State, whether foreign or domestic. By ally request, and approval from the people of the UNITED STATES through their legislative powers, the President shall defend the ally. The President shall, through the use of legislatively approved agencies and departments of the UNITED STATES, enforce all legislation that the people elevated into the national level and keep the peace within the UNITED STATES by assisting state executive officers when requested to do so by that State's Executive office, so long as such assistance does not violate this Constitution. The people of the UNITED STATES should not automatically obligate themselves to defend allies, as the political environment of the ally may become contrary to the UNITED STATES Standards when the political leadership of the ally changes. Worse yet, the ally may initiate an action contrary to the standards of a treaty with the UNITED STATES People.

(e) The President shall negotiate treaties and trade deals for the UNITED STATES, subject to the approval of the UNITED STATES people through their legislative powers, and maintain good standing with other nations of the world in accord with established legislation.

Comment on Duties BLOG

  1. Vacancies: The Office of Vice President shall be filled by the presidential candidate who receives the second highest vote count during the presidential election, regardless of political party. The Vice President shall assume the office of President should the President die, become incapacitated, or be removed from office by the people. The office of the Vice President shall then be filled by the presidential candidate who received the third highest vote count during the election, and shall be informed of matters of State, being made an assistant to the Vice-President. Each president shall choose their advisers to fill the leadership positions of each legislatively approved agencies and departments.

    Comment on Vacancies BLOG

  2. Mid-Term Replacements: Should the President and Vice President and Vice President Assistant become incapacitated, die, or be removed from office at the same time, the required number of State Executive Officers (governors) shall fill the remaining vacancies for the remainder of the term or until such time the President, Vice President, and/or Vice President Assistant shall be reinstated. The qualifying governors shall meet the same qualifications as the President and Vice President. The governors shall be selected from the states with the best financial record, lowest crime-rate, and highest education standards: in that order. Standards shall result from comparative national statistics. Financial records decide which states have a balanced budget or not. Crime-rate takes into account the ratios between the state's population and the number of people incarcerated (servings a sentence for any crime, including community service). Education takes into account the ratio between the total number of students compared to the total graduating above average and the number who failed their courses.

Comment on Mid-Term Replacements BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 6: Judicial Branch





  1. Qualifications: UNITED STATES Judicial officers (judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys) shall be at least thirty-five years of age, native-born citizens, and lived in the UNITED STATES OF AERICA the fourteen consecutive years with the year just prior to the election in the district that the office serves.

    Comment on Qualifications BLOG

  2. Jury:

(a) Each Jury shall be chosen from the list of qualified voters who live in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. The presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney, and the defense shall verify the names of all the qualified voters; placing the names in a tumbler. Each of the three parties shall draw twelve names. Of the thirty-six names drawn, each party shall remove up to six, for cause. The eighteen remaining jurors shall draw twelve names from a hat to determine which will serve as the primary jury and which as the replacement jurors.

(b) All eighteen jurors shall sit through the entire trial until discharged by the court. In addition to legislatively approved compensation, all those serving jury duty (for any length of time) shall receive waivers from the court, which all bill collectors and employers shall honor. The waiver extends the juror's bills one month (extended one month at a time for longer trials) postponing payments without penalty or added interest, and without negative mention on any credit report. Employers shall not adversely affect the juror’s wages or work status because of jury service.

(c) In both criminal and non-criminal cases, the jury shall consist of twelve members who decide the outcome of the case. Juries shall hear only one case at a time, through to the final verdict.

(d) In order to register to vote, the person must be available for jury duty when called.

(e) The defendant must be asked to take the stand. Once there, the court (judge) must inform the defendant of their right to not give testimony or evidence that might convict themselves. That if they choose to answer any question, it does not obligate them to answer any other questions. Defense Council may and should advise their client regarding each question as to whether it could be construed as self-incriminating. Defense lawyers should be alongside their client during questioning for off the record confidential side-bars for advising the defendant.

(f) Jurors must wear two hats: They must be the type of juror that they would like to have sitting in the Jury Box if they were accused of a crime that they claim they did not commit. They also must be the type of juror they would like to have sitting in the Jury Box if they were the victim.

As a juror, you have to live with the results of your choice, so balance your two hats carefully. Victims have been mistaken just as investigators have accused innocent people.

A juror's task is never as easy as the evidence or lack thereof might indicate. You first have to decide if a crime was committed. Then, you have to decide whether the accused person is the one who committed the crime.

(g) Finally, as a juror, each has the duty to ask questions to clarify evidence or testimony, take notes, review evidence and testimony, and to call or recall witnesses.

(h) The only questions to be asked a potential juror are:


1) Do you have personal knowledge of the crime committed? [If so, this person should be among the witnesses].

2) What is you association with the defendant and the other members of the court [judge, prosecutor, defense attorney]?

3) Can you be the type of juror that you might desire if you were accused of the same crime or if you were the victim of the same type of crime?

Comment on Jury BLOG

  1. Duties:

(a) Judges shall oversee over all criminal and non-criminal cases.

(b) The courts shall not legislate in any manner whatsoever.

(c) Juries alone shall decide the guilt or culpability in every criminal and non-criminal case, based on the case’s own merits.

(d) Without regard as to social-economic class and to ensure social stability, juries shall, without bias, decide their cases based on the evidence presented; and judges shall, without bias, sentence the convicted persons according to the Rule of Law, as the required penalty is stated in the law depending on the finding of the jury.

(e) In all criminal cases, with assistance of the defense attorney, judges shall make sure that the accused person knows their rights and the limited powers granted to the government regarding those rights and that the accused person’s rights remain free of government violations.

(f) In non-criminal cases, the prosecution and defense attorneys shall assist the judge in ensuring that the opposing parties understand the laws pertaining to their case. This process shall not prohibit any party from obtaining independent legal counsel in either criminal or non-criminal cases.

(g) Each larger-level judicial jurisdiction shall serve as the appellate court for the next-smaller level judicial jurisdiction. Each court shall be the court of original jurisdiction for all cases resulting from issues and legislation elevated to their jurisdiction.

Comment on Duties BLOG

  1. Presumed Innocent: In both criminal and non-criminal cases, the accused and/or the defendant shall be considered innocent until proven guilty, or culpable, before an impartial jury.

    Comment on Presumed Innocent BLOG

  2. Court Costs and Frivolous Cases: Except in cases where juries decide the case is frivolous, all court costs, in all cases, criminal and non-criminal, regardless of the finding of guilt, culpability, or not, shall be paid by the people out of the appropriate jurisdiction's General Fund where the trial shall occur. This provides to those lacking the financial means with the ability to seek justice via the courts. Every jury shall have the option to decide whether a case is frivolous or not. If a jury decides a case is frivolous the jury may charge predetermined and published court costs to a particular party, whether that party is the prosecuting lawyer, defense attorney, the plaintiff(s), and/or the defendant(s). The court cost shall be served in jail or community service at a rate per day of one-fourth the national minimum wage limit.

    Comment on Court Cost and Frivolous Cases BLOG

  3. Jury Recommendation:

(a) Where an increase of a specific type of crime exists, the jury may recommend to the Legislative Branch to increase the penalty where the crime violates the rights of another. Otherwise, the jury may recommend amending or repealing the law if the crime resulted from the acts between consenting adults or if the actions do not cause harm to another or the property of another.

(b) Jury recommendations for altering or repealing current laws shall not alter the outcome of any case prior to the possible legislative changes.

(c) When the people, through their legislative duties, repeal a law, they free all the people incarcerated for that offense from serving any more time associated with that act. It does not alter any other sentences for other convicted actions.

(d) Any law that makes an act illegal, that was previously legal, shall not be enforceable on any person who committed the act before the new law’s enactment.

Comment on Jury Recommendation BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 7: Open Records





  1. All Government Meetings, records, acts, and judicial proceedings in all branches and all government levels shall be open and available to any citizen and to the press. Secrecy in government breeds corruption, contempt, and distrust. When the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is actively engaged in a war that the people of the UNITED STATES approve through their legislative powers, the media within the UNITED STATES and other citizens shall not broadcast vital information during the war. Violation shall constitute treason, in that it gives aid to the enemy. This shall not prohibit the media or other investigative citizens from becoming informed of military activity, of which they might broadcast or publish after the war ends and a treaty is signed. Publishing or broadcasting military actions that violate this Constitution shall not be suppressed.

    Comment on All Government Meetings BLOG

  2. Rights and Immunities: The citizens of each jurisdiction under this Constitution shall be entitled to all the rights and immunities common to all citizens within this Union.

    Comment on Rights and Immunities BLOG

  3. Escaped Convict: A convicted person fleeing one jurisdiction into another shall be subject to return on demand by the executive officer of the jurisdiction whence the person fled.

    Comment on Escaped Convict BLOG

  4. Removal of a State: A union remains only as strong as the common ties that bind the people together. A state may remove themselves from this Constitutional Union with the consent of a three-fourths vote of the Legislative Branch in each of both Houses of that State as outlined in this Constitution, Article 4 Legislative Branch. On the other hand, the Constitutional Union of States may add or remove a State from this Union with the consent of three-fourths vote in each of both Houses of this Constitutional Union. See Article 4 above.

    Comment on Removal of a State BLOG

  5. Form of Government: This Constitution shall guarantee to every citizen in this Union a Direct Bicameral Legislature in all levels of government, with the people directly electing representatives into the executive and judicial branches.

Comment on Form of Government BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 8: Debts Prior to Enactment





  1. Lawful Debts: The treaties, trade agreements, debts, contracts, engagements or obligations entered into by the representatives of the three branches of government under the 1787 Constitution that they properly presented to the people to obtain their authority or where Constitutional authority existed, these debts shall be honored.

    Comment on Lawful Debts BLOG

  2. Unlawful Debts: Where the treaties, trade agreements, debts, engagements or obligations entered into by the representatives of the three branches of government under the 1787 Constitution were not properly presented to the people to obtain their authority, or where no Constitutional authority existed, those representatives who consented to that debt shall be personally liable for fulfilling them. Under this Constitution, on a case-by-case basis, the people shall retain the option of re-instating any of these acts or debts or to bring any living representative to trial for violations of their oath of office and/or for treason.

    Comment on Unlawful Debts BLOG

  3. Supreme Law of the Land This Constitution, with the aforementioned UNITED STATES Founding Charter, shall be the Supreme Law of this Union, governing the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. All elected officials —including those appointed, hired, contracted, volunteering, or otherwise conducting business on behalf of a governmental body (political jurisdiction, agency, department, etc.), shall be bound hereby. A union is only as strong as the members who take part in it. No treaty or other laws shall conflict with this Constitution.

    Comment on Supreme Law of the Land BLOG

  4. Independent Founding Charter: Any changes to or replacement of this Constitution shall not alter of affect the UNITED STATES Founding Charter. Legally, it is a separate document.

Comment on Independent Founding Charter BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 9: Added Political Restrictions





  1. Religion:

(a) No legislation or other acts of government shall interfere with the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof.

(b) Free exercise does not permit breaking other laws in the name of a religion or in the name of any god; nor does this exempt any religion or member thereof from paying any taxes according to the same rules that apply to any other business or individual.

Comment on Religion BLOG

  1. Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition:

(a) No laws or acts of government shall abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to petition their government for a redress of grievances. The speaking, printing, or broadcasting of threats of violence, libel or slander shall be prohibited, as those actions violate the rights of other individuals.

(b) The line that differentiates freedom of speech from that of harassment must settle conflicts between the rights of one person to speak with that of the rights of another person not to hear that speech. Common courtesy, the volume of the exchange, the venue where the exchange occurs, and whether the words are aimed at a specific person or merely overheard by one from the conversation of others, among other factors, help clarify the difference. Clarity originates within the enacted legislation.

(c) Speech, press, and petition expressly excludes expression, which includes so many actions that might otherwise be illegal by their very nature.

Comment on Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition BLOG

  1. Arms:

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As with all other rights, when a convicted person pays their debt in full, according to the law, that person's rights shall be reinstated. The punishment for criminal activity that uses a weapon or threat of a weapon shall be three-fold that as if the same crime were committed without a weapon or threat of a weapon. During the same criminal act, harming more than one person, each person harmed constitutes a separate offense. Self-Defense, defense of family or others, and the defense of property —when proven, shall not be a crime.

(b) Requiring a person to pass weapons-safety classes and to present a card acknowledging successfully passing the course for the proper use, care, and maintenance shall not constitute an infringement. Weapons-safety classes are a public safety measure.

(c) As for other private rights that a person possesses, requiring possession of a license that signifies knowledge of proper care and operation include the license to operate a vehicle on public property or another person's property. Other similar restrictions on individual rights shall be amended into this Constitution.

Comment on Arms BLOG

  1. Militia: Well-regulated, professionally trained militias are necessary to maintain the security of a Free State.

    Comment on Militia BLOG

  2. Soldiers, Quartering: In time of peace, no soldier or other government officials shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner and legal occupant of that house. During time of war, quartering soldiers and other government officials shall be in the manner prescribed by law.

    Comment on Soldier, Quartering BLOG

  3. Personal Security: The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, business, transportation, papers, communications, banking, as well as other transactions and effects, whether electronic, written or other modes against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause that a crime was committed, supported by oath or affirmation naming those who witnessed the crime, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This, and no other part of this Constitution, shall be violated, even during times of war. Probable cause is not sufficient to allow an automatic search without a warrant, it is only sufficient to obtain a warrant. Officers witnessing a crime in action may arrest and secure the area by making sure that those apprehended are unarmed and detained.
    Comment on Personal Security BLOG

  4. Searches:

(a) Evidence from searches without a warrant shall be allowed in court so long as the searchers receive prior written consent from the person to be searched or from the owner and occupant of the places to be searched. The written consent shall include the places to be searched, the items or persons sought, the persons or things to be seized, and at least two independent witnesses or one notary to witness the signatures.

(b) All searches shall allow for the benefit of the presence of counsel or other independent witnesses should the person to be searched or the owner or occupant of property to be searched make such a request.

(c) Without a court order, only the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) can search or grant permission to search a person who is not yet eighteen years of age or who is not yet a legally emancipated minor. Even with a court order, the parents or the legal guardians must be present during the search.

(d) A minor, a person who is not an adult or is not a legally emancipated minor, shall not authorize a search of property or to the places they live or have temporary control of or use of without the consent of the owner or primary controller of the property. Minors shall not be qualified to consent to a search of their person without the presence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s).

Comment on Searches BLOG

  1. Found Evidence:

(a) Evidence found in public locations that are not on private or commercial property shall be considered as legally obtained. Locations such as rented or borrowed locker-space (whether from private or government facilities) shall be considered as private. Government offices or operations shall be considered public, regardless of whether they lease or rent from a private or commercial entity.

(b) The evidence found as the result of any illegal search shall be presented in court for examination by the judge, prosecutor, and defense. The offending searchers shall be prosecuted for the illegal search. Upon conviction, each person involved in an illegal search shall serve a mandatory three-year sentence for violating the rights of the searched person. Each person illegally searched constitutes a separate violation.

Comment on Found Evidence BLOG

  1. Return of Property: After the jury delivers their verdict, all seized property shall be returned within thirty days to the rightful owner. All money seized shall be returned with the addition of interest, paid at the highest bank rate available to the public by any public banking establishment within the subject jurisdiction during the time the money was seized, provided the defendant is found innocent of the charges that brought about the seizure of the property. All stolen property shall be returned to its rightful owner within thirty days after the trial. In all other cases, where the jury delivers a guilty verdict, the next-larger political jurisdiction where the trial occurs shall become the legal owner of the seized property. The next-larger political jurisdiction officials shall advertise the seized items to be sold and shall sell the seized property at a public auction location that the people of the subject political jurisdiction shall establish with their legislation.

    Comment on Return of Property BLOG

  2. Capital Crime: No person shall be detained while awaiting trial to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

    Comment on Capital Crime BLOG

  3. Double Jeopardy: No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy for the loss of life, limb, or property. Double Jeopardy shall include a combination of criminal and/or non-criminal accusations regarding responsibility for the same action.

    Comment on Double Jeopardy BLOG

  4. Self-Incrimination: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witnesses against themselves or to provide evidence that might incriminate them. Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    Comment on Self Imcrimination BLOG

  5. Eminent Domain: No property shall be taken from the rightful owner, except in cases of non-criminal prosecutions for which a jury decides the defendant owes restitution. Taking private property for public use shall not be an option in a Free and Responsible Society. Private land or items of value shall not be taken from its rightful owner for public use except through taxation that is equally applied to all others in the same political jurisdiction according to the rules of law. The people are responsible for developing alternatives that do not involve the taking of property without the consent of the rightful owner.

    Comment on Eminent Domain BLOG

  6. Trial by Jury: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and jurisdiction wherein the crime was committed, which jurisdiction shall have been previously ascertained by law. At the time of arrest, and no later than three hours, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation as well as be informed of or reminded of their rights, which include the right to not offer evidence or testimony that might convict themselves. The accused shall retain the right to question witnesses against them, to have the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of independent counsel for their defense. Trial by jury cannot and shall not be waived by the accused, and it shall not be denied to the accused by any government official or agent of the government. This prohibits plea-bargaining, as the only people who benefit from such bargains are the guilty.

    Comment on Trial by Jury BLOG

  7. Revoking Immunity:

(a) Revoking the immunity presently given to family members, clergy, lawyers, doctors, the media, and others with regard to withholding information or evidence of a crime is necessary in an Honorable and Just legal system to maintain a peaceable society. Though the usual responsibility of these people is to help the individual, it does not include harboring or otherwise giving aid to fugitives by not disclosing illegal activity confessed to or otherwise made known to them. Such immunity qualifies as treason as this provides aid and comfort to an enemy against the People, who in general, can no longer enjoy their safety, security, life, liberty, or happiness.

(b) If someone reports of having committed a crime to you, inclusive of whether you are a religious leader, a doctor, a lawyer, or other previously exempted group, you become an accomplice unless you report that information to the law enforcement agencies. Let the criminals live with their own conscience about the crime. Planning, thinking about or brainstorming about criminal activity shall not constitute criminal activity until the participant also commits the act or benefits from the proceeds from the criminal act.

(c) With Justice, the duty for all involved is to find out what the truth is as it relates to the crime or accusations at hand. If the prosecution finds evidence that may help free the accused, they must present the information or evidence to the courts and jury.

(d) A defense attorney with information, inclusive of written and/or audio and video confessions that may help convict their accused client must also submit that information or evidence to the courts. If the accused person does not repeat the confession before the jury, the confession shall not be allowed as evidence.

Comment on Revoking Immunity BLOG

  1. Long-Form Confession: For the purpose of justice, the accused shall not waive the right to trial by an impartial jury, not even through a confession. Any confession by the accused shall detail the events of the crime committed in long-form, in open court and before an impartial jury. A confession shall not diminish the penalty.

    Comment on Long-Form Confession BLOG

  2. The Guilty but Insanity Plea is an automatic admission of guilt and shall be available for use by any accused person who chooses to use it. The person using this plea shall provide a long-form confession as detailed above, and be informed of the restrictions of the plea, which include first serving the required jail or prison time with all other jail or prison inmates of similar types of crime, and not in a hospital. The person using this plea shall bear sole responsibility for proving they are sane before their release from custody.

    Comment on The Guilty but Insanity Plea BLOG

  3. Death Sentence shall no longer be available within any jurisdiction under this Constitution. It is easier to restore the rights to a wrongly convicted person while they live than it is after they die. See Involuntary Servitude.

    Comment on Death Sentence BLOG

  4. Criminal and Non-Criminal Cases: Criminal cases shall include all prosecutions for the violation of any enacted legislation, regardless of the level of government. Non-criminal cases shall include cases between individuals where the rights of an individual are violated by another person, business, or government entity and the offended person seeks financial restitution. All court trials, hearings, and other proceedings shall have an elected judge, an elected prosecutor, and an elected defense lawyer present to assist the parties of each case, as well as assisting the court, answering legal questions, and examining evidence; ensuring justice for all. This shall in no way deny a person from obtaining independent legal counsel for either the defense and/or the prosecution. No fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court except according to the Rule of Law and where evidence of jury tampering is discovered. With the more serious crimes, the courts may refuse bail, but must set the court date within 30 days of the date requested by the defendant.

    Comment on Criminal and Non-Criminal Cases BLOG

  5. Failure to Appear:

(a) The courts shall issue all trial dates and subpoenas, from both the prosecution-plaintiff and the defense. The appropriate Sheriff’s Department shall serve in-hand those subpoenas to the named party’s last known address. The court shall pay all service fees for both parties. All other fees paid by government via taxes for the prosecution shall also be paid for the defense for the same types of expenses. To prevent abuse of this provision, the jury may determine frivolous abuses and charge any part of or all of the costs to the party abusing the services.

(b) Without a court approved extension, if a defendant flees the jurisdiction or fails to appear for trial, the courts shall accept such actions by the accused as if the accused presented a written document that allows the courts to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused. The court shall make note that the named defendant failed to appear. If the accused person hired an attorney, that attorney along with the elected defense lawyer shall defend the accused person in the absence of the accused.

(c) In criminal cases, where the accused failed to appear and the jury finds the accused guilty, the court shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused, which shall include the demand for return of the convicted person when found, regardless of what state or country where the accused person is found. When captured, the convicted person shall begin serving the required sentence. The convict shall be allowed to challenge the evidence, recorded witness testimony, and the law in an appeal. In non-criminal cases, if the jury finds one party culpable and the culpable party refuses to make restitution at the end of the trial, an order for restitution shall issue where financial accounts or real property may be seized to satisfy the judgment.

Comment on Failure to Appear BLOG

  1. Bail and Punishment shall not exceed that which the enacted legislation requires and shall not violate the Constitution.

    Comment on Bail and Punishment BLOG

  2. Involuntary Servitude:

(a) Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or any place subject to its jurisdiction.

(b) Within any political jurisdiction subject to this Constitution, slavery and involuntary servitude are neither cruel nor unusual in the context of the punishment of crime. For less-dangerous crimes, where jail or prison is not required, involuntary servitude shall include community service. There shall be no fines demanded for the punishment of any type of crime, minor or major. All convicted persons shall serve time in prison, jail, or community service. The test to determine whether a particular type of labor or the hours worked are either cruel or unusual shall consist solely of whether or not the labor or hours are legal for a Free Citizen to perform, whether for hire or as a volunteer.

(c) Convicted persons shall not receive any monetary compensation for their labors and shall not receive gifts, other than non-physical-contact visits and written correspondence, which shall be monitored and recorded. Revenue from convict labor shall help with victim restorations, supply the raw materials for inmates to grow their own food, make the fabrics for their own clothing, provide products and services for other government offices and agencies to reduce the required tax dollars to operate government, and to pay for maintenance of the jail and prison facilities. In this manner, our jails and prisons provide hands-on skill-building education, instilling work habits, and the understanding that Crime No Longer Pays in the U.S. of A. The Free People also benefit, in that they no longer pay as both the victim and the taxpayer.

Comment on Involuntary Servitude BLOG

  1. Due Process: No law shall infringe upon the rights of any individual, except in cases specifically stated within the Constitution. Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property resulting from criminal or non-criminal prosecution without due process of law, nor shall any government office deny to any person (citizen or not) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In like manner, every government official or other person conducting business on behalf of a political jurisdiction shall not escape justice because of their political connections.

    Comment on Due Process BLOG

  2. Other Rights: The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed in any way to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The UNITED STATES Founding Charter names some of the rights retained by the people regardless of our forms of government. Mentioning certain rights within this Constitution are for limiting or specifically forbidding government involvement regarding the rights listed. Failure to mention other rights forbids government interference in those rights until such time as the people amend this Constitution to grant to government such power or authority regarding those rights.

    Comment on Other Rights BLOG

  3. Political Powers: The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed in any way to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The UNITED STATES Founding Charter names some of the rights retained by the people regardless of our forms of government. Mentioning certain rights within the Constitution are for limiting or specifically forbidding government involvement regarding the rights listed. Failure to mention other rights forbids government interference in those rights until such time as the people amend the Constitution to grant to government such power or authority regarding those rights.

    Comment on Political Powers BLOG

  4. Military Authority: The police and military authority of each larger political jurisdiction shall be subject to the authority of the smaller political jurisdictions when assisting them. When acting in the capacity of their own political jurisdiction's issues and legislation, the larger political jurisdictions shall retain authority and the smaller political jurisdiction's military, militia, and police shall assist them as needed. In either case, all requests remain subject to the Rule of Law provided by this Constitution.

    Comment on Military Authority BLOG

  5. Diplomatic Immunities:

(a) All citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who visit foreign lands, regardless of reason, shall be subject to the laws of that land. There shall be no diplomatic immunity offered to any official of the UNITED STATES, officials of any state within this Union, or non-government citizens who commit a crime in another country.

(b) In like manner, all visitors from foreign lands, regardless of reason for visiting the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, shall be subject to the laws of the jurisdictions wherein they travel. There shall be no diplomatic immunity for foreign officials or non-government foreign visitors who commit a crime in this country.

Comment on Diplomatic Immunities BLOG

  1. Political Refugee: Persons fleeing tyranny of another Nation-State and seeking political refuge within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA shall surrender themselves to the first political authority under this Constitution for processing by the UNITED STATES government; otherwise, when captured within this jurisdiction, they shall be considered illegal immigrants and processed as such.

    Comment on Political Refugee BLOG

  2. Illegal Immigration:

(a) Anyone suspected of having entered any of these united States illegally may be asked to present identification. If unable to provide appropriate identification, the accused shall receive an impartial jury trial, funded out of the National Union's General Fund. If the jury finds the accused guilty, those convicted shall serve three years in jail or prison, working hard labor alongside other convicted citizens before returning to their home country. If the individual is charged with other crimes, additional trials shall be held regarding those charges, the cost of which shall be paid out of the general fund of the political jurisdiction where the crimes and/or the trial shall take place. If convicted, the person shall serve the appropriate sentence(s). All sentencing shall be the same as if a legal citizen committed the same crime. Each sentence shall be served one after the other.

(b) Whether a person is a citizen of, or in the jurisdiction of this Constitution legally or illegally, all persons convicted of separate crimes shall serve consecutive sentences (one after the other). Anyone convicted of entering the jurisdiction of this Constitution illegally shall also be prohibited from re-entering legally for at least ten years after being returned to their home country.

Comment on Illegal Immigration BLOG

  1. National Language:

(a) For purposes of unification, citizenship, and a cost-effective government, every citizen shall be able to read, speak, understand, and/or otherwise communicate in the UNITED STATES version of the English Language prior to qualifying for any government program or benefits, as well as citizenship. Short-term refugees (one year or less) are the only exception. This requirement does not violate the conditions of a person's age, sex, race, color, religion, cultural background, or in any other way, as it supposes that all persons voluntarily come to or desire to remain within any one of these States. This requirement shall not be construed in any way to prevent citizens from learning other languages or otherwise practicing their desired culture so long as such practices do not violate any laws enacted within the guidelines of this Constitution.

(b) People in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, who cannot communicate in the UNITED STATES version of the English Language, retain sole responsibility for hiring an interpreter when dealing with government offices within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

(c) Part of the UNITED STATES education shall include, as part of the American English courses, a version of International Sign-Language and Morris-Code.

Comment on National Language BLOG

  1. Right to Vote:

(a) The right of citizens to vote or to receive benefit from any government program or agency shall not be denied or abridged by any political jurisdiction or agent under this Constitution because of that citizen's race, color, age, gender, cultural background, sexual preference, religion, failure to pay any tax, or because of a previous condition of servitude where those sentences were served in full.

(b) Government officials may require an individual to prove their eligibility to vote; based on age (in that they are old enough); citizenship requirements (in that they are in fact legal citizens); and based on residency requirements (in that they lived in the political jurisdiction long enough, and that they are in fact a citizen).

(c) With regard to employment, the government has the duty to assure the individuals understand their duties and responsibilities for employment (in that they are physically able to properly perform those duties in a timely manner, or as otherwise established in approved legislation that does not violate this Constitution).

(d) In addition to age, residency, and citizenship no other reasons shall exist to prevent a person from voting; except if a person still serves a sentence, or any part thereof, for any criminal activity, which also makes them ineligible for any government benefits.

(e) The families of a convicted person shall not become eligible for any government benefits that they were not already eligible for prior to the commission of the crime. This shall not exclude this family from receiving benefits for which they qualified to receive prior to the commission of the crime.

Comment on Right to Vote BLOG

  1. Right of Personal Association: The right of the people to choose personal associates —whether employees, business customers, church or club members, etc., or tenants for non-government funded business or housing, etc., shall not be infringed, so long as the individual advertises and/or openly posts such restrictions. Such posting is for the sole benefit of those who might otherwise apply but would not qualify according to the standards of the one making the offer. This item shall not be construed in any manner whatsoever to allow, enable, or encourage criminal activity.

    Comment on Right of Personal Association BLOG

  2. When the Rights of Individuals Conflict:

(a) When the rights of two or more people seem to conflict, the rights of the one should not violate the rights of the other.

(b) For example, the Job Seeker has a right to work. The Employer has a right to hire anyone they desire, regardless of their reason. The Job Seeker’s right to work should not negate the Employer’s right to hire someone else, even if the Job Seeker is the best qualified. The Job Seeker’s right remains intact with the exercise of the Employer’s right, because the Job Seeker still has the right to work anywhere that an employer will hire them. The seeker may start their own business, offering products and services that they desire. On the other hand, the Employer’s right is violated if they are forced to hire or retain a Job Seeker whom they do not wish to hire or continue employing.

(c) As for government, it has no rights with regard to hiring or firing. The government officials must hire according to the laws and conditions stated within this Constitution.

(d) In this example, laws might protect the Job Seeker with the payment of the equivalent of three months wages and benefits severance package if they were laid-off or fired without just cause. Employers need not compensate those fired for committing a crime in the workplace, which the employer must prove to a jury in order to avoid paying the severance benefits.

Comment on When the Rights of Individuals Conflict BLOG

  1. Taxation: Through the legislative powers described within this Constitution, the People within the political jurisdiction who enact specific legislation shall decide all amounts and forms of taxation with regard to how they shall fund the enforcement of laws, pay for public programs, government projects, or any other acts that require the use of public money.

    Comment on Taxation BLOG

  2. Grant of Power: No official in any level or branch of government shall obtain any power that those people subject to its jurisdiction do not specifically grant to that political jurisdiction's branch or level of government.

Comment on Grant of Power BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Article 10: Ratification





  1. Ratification: When Three-Quarters of Both Houses of the National Union (via the cities, towns, villages, counties, and states) approve this Constitution, it shall become effective and binding on all political jurisdictions that are now and shall become part of this union of States.

    Comment on Ratification BLOG

  2. Standing Constitution: Upon enactment, this Constitution shall replace the 1787 Constitution, all its Amendments, the Articles of Confederation, all other Federal and National Constitutions, as well as all lower lever political jurisdiction's Constitutions; thus making this Constitution the only legal political link following the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Comment on Standing Constitution BLOG

  3. Enacted this _____ day of in the year ____, by the people of the City/Town/Village of _____________, in ________________County, in the State of _________________, in General Assembly within our local community meeting.

    Comment on Enacted BLOG

  4. The Voting Tally-Sheet from each city and town shall accompany this signed Constitution, fulfilling the requirements of this Constitution, the 1787 Constitution, and the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Comment on The Voting Tally-Sheet BLOG

— End of proposed Constitution —









[Return to Table of Contents]















Concluding With Action:









The Messianic Contagion





Religious messiah are topic for another book. Political messiah, the topic here, cause many of the same types of trouble. Of those troubles is a serious lack of communication. The messiah promises to deliver to the people everything that those people want, even if some of those promises conflict. The people begin following this messiah until the road gets a little rough and the people start complaining and seeking a new messiah. In order for the messiah to retain title they also must attract to themselves excessive and usually unjust powers over the people.

The poor communications usually occurs when the people, claiming on the one side with the messiah understanding something completely different on the other. Though the words sound the same when coming from either the people or the messiah the end results appear completely unalike.

Early on in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the people knew what they wanted —less government— and they defended their right to possess it. Over time, the people allowed that government to involve itself in every aspect of human living.

Records about history name many messiahs who came to free their people. Equally so, those historical records identify civilizations that fell to ruin when those messiahs unjustly expanded their powers to eventually enslave the people.

Politicians become the messiah-figure with their promises to —free the people. Government becomes the tool those politicians use to do everything for us. Proven true —any government empowered to do everything for us is big enough to take everything from us.

Freedom is short-lived when the free let loose of the reins that control the power of their government.

Freedoms and Rights last only as long as the individuals desire to defend those Rights and Freedoms. It is for this reason alone that every older generation must demonstrate to each newer generation how to defend their Freedoms and Rights without procrastinating to the point where weapons become necessary to accomplish what unity among the people might otherwise accomplish with an occasional Recall Election.

Comment on Messianic Contagion BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Are We Ants or People





Recently, I invested several hours watching a couple of ant colonies. At one of those colonies, I tossed in several small pieces of the pastries I was eating. The first of the four pieces took the longest to attract members of the colony. I can imagine the conversation that the first ant had with others.

"I was out there working when this huge feast fell from the heavens and nearly killed me!"

"Yea, right." As any hearing the story went about doing what already occupied their time.

In comes another ant that stumbled on a piece and thought to bring a small flake of it as evidence. "Have any of you seen what we're having for dinner?"

Within a about 30 seconds there were nearly 30 ants ripping off flakes of pastry and carting them into their hole-in-the-ground. Then I tossed the second piece. It took less than five seconds for nearly as many ants to get on it.

What I noticed about the difference between ants and humans is that when humans (generally speaking) happen upon a bonanza of some sort, the human tends to hoard as much as they are able to before others find out about it. It does not matter whether that human could ever use all that they acquire or not before it rots or wastes away having never been used.

As a trash hauler, I saw plenty of that excess food rot and thrown in the trash. The unused food had plenty of good company. In addition, I saw a lot of barely used and unopened packages with new items tossed in the same bags as the wasted food.

Being one of those more enjoyable dirty jobs in my life, I recovered as much of the food waste for compost or for pig and chicken food. The salvageable used and new items found their way to a perpetual yard sale. One hundred percent of the items that we toss in our landfills is re-useable —just let a creative mind get their hands on it.

I suppose in ant-years I am right on schedule. More than 20 years passed since I started telling people about what I found. Just recently, it seems as thought the second person is just getting interested to the point of telling others. What you learn in the following pages is important. Important, because it need not take years to get enough other people interested and eager to help secure the treasure of our Rights and Freedoms.

No, we are not ants, we, as people, have several tools at our disposal that ants do not yet possess. We can communicate our thoughts and plans near instantly around the entire planet, and beyond, in as little time as it takes us to dial a phone or tap a few keys on a computer.

How about it? Will you help me act like ants and use our modern technology to communicate the benefits of this bonanza around the world?


Comment on Are We Ants or People BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]













Mind Power





The book, The Miracle of Psycho-Command Power © 1972 by Parker Publishing Co., Inc., written by Scott Reed, contains the following information throughout the book.

“Every object in existence first existed in someone’s mind... all existed first only as an idea in someone’s mind, you, yourself, are the result of this law of creation... Thoughts are real to the thinker. Each of us, therefore, lives in a vast invisible universe —silent and invisible to others, but clear as life and plain as day to us. To each of us, our minds are a kingdom, alive and filled with the splendor of our dreams, desires, and goals. We can see these things clearly... Likewise, the human mind can materialize thoughts as well as any duplicating machine.”

If we desire to improve our government, we must know that we first have the right to do so. Then, we accept that right as our duty. Finally, we have to believe that we can succeed. For the first two, all we need is the legal authority. For the third, an example.

We find the legal authority regarding our right and our duty, first in the second paragraph of the UNITED STATES Founding Charter; second in the 1787 UNITED STATES Constitution, Amendment 9, which states:

“The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Finally, in the 1787 Constitution’s Preamble:

“We the People of the UNITED STATES... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

As for the example: What better example for us than that of the Founders who created these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA out of the former thirteen British Colonies?

We must express our desires in such a manner as though we already possess the object of our search, in this case, that of a better government and a better country. Most importantly, we must believe that we will in reality obtain the objective of our search. It is in that belief that we, as the seekers, actually alter our life to be in accord with that which we seek.

When we do not anticipate receiving what we claim we seek, we go about our lives as usual. We rarely put any effort into obtaining our claimed desires. Then we complain about not being able to enjoy it.

With the mind, we have to believe that we can in fact realize the objectives of this quest, that of a better government. If, in our minds, better government is not possible, there is no need for us to try. That is unless we feel lucky. Well? Do ya feel lucky?

If we do not like the situations we experience, we must do something improve our condition. Preferably legal, otherwise we must prepare ourselves to accept the consequences.

If we dislike the fact that only evil people are elected, we should quit voting for evil candidates, even if they are The Lesser of Evils.

Staying in an occupation, relationship, or other types of situations that we dislike or even hate, we act contrary to our happiness. Unless being miserable or causing others misery is what makes you happy. In remaining in those unpleasant situations, we do a disservice to not only ourselves but also to others.

We give one of the greatest gifts to ourselves and to others when we free ourselves from an unpleasant or unwanted situation, or by changing our attitude about it. With that freedom, we bring with us sets of skill and knowledge from our previous stations in life. With a few modifications to those skill and knowledge tools, we can use them to help us solve future problems anywhere and anytime. Circumstances that remain out of our control often force us to make some of those same types of changes in our life.

When we are happier, so are others in our world. We become more productive. We are not just that which we do today; we acquire many skills that we might adapt for use in other of our endeavors, the limits of which, only our minds control.


Comment on Mind Power BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]















Strength in Numbers







By pooling our resources, far greater achievements become possible and even likely.

When we destroy the resources and knowledge of another, whether out of ignorance, fear, or superstition —everyone loses.

To win any battle or war, aside from an increase in strength; whether that means a rise in the physical numbers of participants or better intelligence about the opponent’s weaknesses; we must know that we can win. Without the solid knowledge that we can win, we have no reason begin for all is already lost.

Let’s first strengthen the unity within our numbers. When we are strong first, it is easier to increase our numbers. If we work merely to increase our numbers first and then work on our strength, we tend to suffer far more internal battles than we need.

Increasing our numbers need not exceed 30-Days. The following chart allows for as long as 30-Weeks.

The strength of unity, along with each person’s drive and desire, increases the odds of our success and decreases the time to achieve our desired result. In the following example, we look at the weeks prior to any November election.

The following chart presents the mathematical principle. As you see, by the 27th day (or the 27th week), enough support exists to win any election, or to effect any necessary alterations to our present form of government.

Day-Week...........Total People...........People Added
1....May 1–7.....................1........................1
2....May 8–14...................2........................2
3....May 15–21.................4........................4
4....May 22–28.................8........................8
5....May 29–4.................16.......................16
6....Jun 5–11..................32.......................32
7....Jun 12–18................64.......................64
8....Jun 19–25...............128.....................128
9....Jun 26–2.................256.....................256
10..Jul 3–9....................512.....................512
11..Jul 10–16..............1,024..................1,024
12..Jul 17–23..............2,048..................2,048
13..Jul 24–30..............4,096..................4,096
14..Jul 31–6................8,192..................8,192
15..Aug 7–13.............16,384................16,384
16..Aug 14–20...........32,768.................32,768
17..Aug 21–27...........65,536.................65,536
18..Aug 28–3...........131,072...............131,072
19..Sep 4–10...........262,144...............262,144
20..Sep 11–17.........524,288................524,288
21..Sep 18–24.......1,048,576.............1,048,576
22..Sep 25–1.........2,097,152............2,097,152
23..Oct 2–8...........4,194,304............4,194,304
24..Oct 9–15.........8,388,608.............8,388,608
25..Oct 16–22......16,777,216...........16,777,216
26..Oct 23–29......33,554,432...........33,554,432
27..Oct 30–5........67,108,864...........67,108,864
28..Nov 6–12......134,217,728.........134,217,728
29..Nov 13–19.....268,435,456.........268,435,456
30..Nov 20–26.....536,870,912.........536,870,912

 

Mathematical Doubling is a sound principle. It requires our earnest effort to make it work.

If we think we need the support of the media, we might as well surrender today. They are not likely to buck the system or bite the hands that they incorrectly assume feeds their profits. The media will eventually listen to us-the-people, only when the media controllers see us as the true reason that they are able to profit so generously from advertising sales.

As far as our controlling our media resources, media controllers tend to look at unified numbers, not so much at individually divided subscribers. When we petition the media, with our unified voice as to what types of news stories that we want them to cover, they will listen, especially when we take our collective purchasing power and support their competitors. This also works for controlling the monopoly price-gouging from big-business.

The principle of Mathematical Doubling is sound. Its practice makes all the difference. Be aware of this part of human nature identified within the Founding Charter for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which states:

“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

How much longer will you tolerate the ever-increasing political evils from our government?

Comment on Strength in Numbers BLOG







[Return to Table of Contents]


















Sending a Stronger Message





With the ever-increasing number of political groups forming, nearly all of them claim that they want to send a very strong message to Congress, the President, and the Courts in hopes of getting our government to work within Constitutional limitations on its powers. This is all fine and dandy, but what good is even the strongest possible message if the people sending it are not willing to follow through.

Such claims about sending a strong message to our politicians remind me of the difference between the methods my parents used to discipline us kids.

Being the little hellions we were, we often acted up to the point it bothered either Mom or Dad. Mom’s commands of counting and threatening almost never worked for her, especially when Dad was away from home working. We knew each step of her routine. We knew at exactly what point she got serious enough to use that strap. We also knew that Mom did not like to use the strap on us kids. That knowledge went a long ways to tolerating Mom’s threatening and counting.

It took Mom a lot more time to get results with us than it did for Dad. She got the strap, stood in front of us and then told us to calm down. If we settled, she used no strap. If not, she swatted at us until we settled.

We also figured out Dad’s routine rather early in our lives, especially after a few experiments. The first few times any of us acted up, we discovered that if Dad even motioned toward that wide leather strap, he was not wasting the effort. He used it.

Mom thought Dad had a special look that made us kids obey him so quickly. His success had little to do with his look. Dad’s success hinged solely on the fact that he did exactly what he told us he was going to do if we did not listen to him. His look was simply the second part in the series of events. Our chaos was the first.

He advised Mom that if she wanted us kids to mind her quicker, without her counting and all sort of other rituals that she had to use the strap with her first warning.

Right now, our politicians toy with us. They test us to see just how far we will allow them to corrupt our UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before we step up to correct them.

Well? How far are we going to let them go?

Should We-the-People of the UNITED STATES desire to send to our politicians the strongest message, we must retrain them as my father might. We must get them in the habit of knowing that when we-the-people try enforcing the Constitution to preserve our Form of Government, we no longer intend to waste our time waiting for the next regular election. In order to quickly remove those rogue politicians from office, before they cause any additional damage, we have the Recall Election at our disposal.

Our politicians must stop demonstrating to us that they might act, but only when and how it suites them to do so. We must prevent them from responding to us with repeated and increased injustices whenever we petition them to correct their injustices toward us.

With The Winning Strategy of Mathematical Doubling, outlined above, we can re-educate our politicians to obtain our desired results in as few as thirty days. It all depends upon our willingness to crack-the-whip and work together.


Comment on Sending a Stronger Message BLOG









The END (almost...)









Yippee! We’re halfway done.

We identified the problems and created a few concrete solutions.

The last half is deciding on what to do —then doing what we decide. On the other hand, we can simply sit idly by and cry in our milk about how our politicians refuse to listen to us.









[Return to Table of Contents]









Modify Website

© 2000 - 2014 powered by
Doteasy Web Hosting