Jump to navigation Jump to search

Constitution for the Common Man

Version and History

Version 0.5 - earlier version available at kspect.com

Background

Imagine dealing with a landlord who not only reinterprets the terms of a rental contract to his advantage, but doesn't even have a clear understanding of what the terms of the contract mean. Who would do business with such a shady character?

Perhaps the only ones to accept such a situation are those who:

  • lack enough power to enforce the legitimate terms of the contract;
  • have short memories; or
  • are unable to understand the contract.

It is the author's contention that a similar situation exists for the people of the United States and their relationship with its Government and in many ways, the author himself.

Purpose

The goal of this article is describe WHY the Constitution was setup in the manner that it was and WHY it is important to restore the principles behind it, while simultaneously providing action steps that any of us can take to not only restore it, but to bring it all to proper balance of Federal Government vs. State Government vs. the People. Note: The author's personal goal in this article was to enhance his own understanding of how the Government works, therefore I would suggest not accepting what I say on face value. Do your own homework in the event that I am misinformed.

Lost Freedom?

First - have we really lost our freedoms? At this time, I can generally say or write whatever I want, so long as it is not slander or libel or inciting violence. I carry a firearm in my pocket as I write. I can fire up a blog such as this one in, in minutes, and say whatever I want to basically. I can go to whatever church I want to or not go. This latter freedom wasn't always so in some locales at the forming of our country. Some towns mandated attendance at a particular church.

Yet, there are numerous examples where freedom is gradually being stripped away.

For examples:

  • the NSA performs an illegal search of your private life with every metadata harvest they perform in violation of the 4th amendment.
  • The EPA, BLM, and a whole host of alphabet agencies ignore the 10th Amendment and violate State jurisdiction. In Texas, there is the TECQ - the EPA has duplicated what is Constitutionally an authority of the State of Texas
  • One has to ask permission to carry a weapon in many states and aren't allowed to carry in public in many states
  • the so-called war on drugs appears to disproportionately impact certain classes of society. [30]


Further, while it is true that this article's existence testifies that there is still freedom left, there is also simply a great deal of room for improvement. Consider that for people living under the former Soviet Union, a country that was mostly isolated, standing in bread lines was considered normal and acceptable.

Breadlines.jpg

Thus, while immersed in a given mindset, one may find it perfectly acceptable if there is no basis for comparison. Perhaps the same is true in our country? Let's make it better, but before we can do that we must understand how and why it works the way it does - lest we make things worse! Also, it may be worth noting that the "cracks in the Constitution" could be argued to have helped expand rights in many cases.

Where are we?

To determine where to go, we must first determine where we have been and where we are at.

Constitutional Ignorance

First, let's test your knowledge of the Constitution:

  • Name one of the enumerated powers delegated to the Congress in the Constitution
  • Explain the concept of Federalism
  • Explain broad vs. narrow interpretation of the general welfare clause
  • Explain under what conditions can you legally shoot someone in the face if they break into your home
  • Name one of your State's gun laws and how it applies to use of deadly force in your home
  • Describe where is the power of Judicial review indicated in the Constitution
  • How many countries are we bombing right now under a formal declaration of War by Congress?
  • If you can answer the above, congratulations - you must be one of the lucky ones, but by and large a quick Internet search or even monitoring the opinions in the news, work place, and social media sites indicates a wide diversity in viewpoints with respect to applying the Constitution.

Wikipedia indicates that there are even names assigned to the various Constitutional schools of thought. For example, some hold that the second amendment applies directly to the people of the states - that the states can pass no law which might infringe on the acquisition of weaponry by the people of the state. Others hold that the second amendment only applies to state militias. The state of Georgia didn't even bother to put a protection for bearing arms into their earlier constitution, because it was believed that the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution was sufficient to cover the state of Georgia! [21, 25] Another philosophy is perhaps singularly captured in the expression: "The second amendment is my carry permit", which is routinely touted on social media by denizens of Facebook and some Congressmen alike. It seems that the view of the second amendment splintered after the civil war with a wide variety of view points that resulted. Let's take a step back from the Constitutional schools of thought and ask:

Why Government?

Why does government exist in the first place? Let's look at the big picture. Does anyone have the right to tell you how to live your life? Do you have the right to tell anyone else how to live their life? The answer seems to be that your rights end right where someone else's rights begin. As long as you're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't have anyone telling you what to do. Sounds good, in principle, right? The trouble comes when defining what is meant by ... hurting. For example, smokers may not consider their smoke harmless, but perhaps a non smoker would disagree. Maybe this example of hurting is easily solved by simply not going into places where there are smokers. Yet, there are numerous other areas where the definition of hurting can vary among people.

The Declaration of Independence mentions the natural laws and Nature's god, but this is often ignored by just about everyone.

The text states: "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" (emphasis mine). In other words, are rights can be seen in nature itself and are granted by no man!

Milton Friedman offers this: “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” [27]

In essence, he is saying that government provides a type of protection racket - you pay the money to it (taxes) and it will make sure everyone plays fair. Playing fair is often called the "rule of law" and is defined roughly as follows: no one is above the law's sanction, and no one is beneath its protection. Consider also that the reason laws are written is for those who have no law within themselves. See the Tragedy of the Commons for an example of what can happen in certain lawless situations. Remember what happened to the buffalo when they weren't protected by law? For additional thought and discussion behind the purpose and structure of governments, a mock up of the evolution of our government is discussed in another article linked here.

Constitutional Basics

Checks and Balances

The simplest way to understand checks and balance is as follows: don't let a fox guard the henhouse.

FoxHenhouse.jpg

Government could be compared to a dog that has been asked to guard the henhouse. A dog may be less apt to kill the chickens and will scare off the fox, the snake, and the skunk. Depending on its disposition, some level of trust may be placed in the dog - that it won't eat or attack the hens; however, complete trust would be foolish, at best. Imagine placing trust in all dogs to guard the henhouse because there was success with one or two that had a sweet disposition and didn't attack the chickens.

For those without a rural background, this may be easier to see in the mechanics of a small company than for an entire country.

Imagine if you worked for a company and had the job of paying people that the company owed money, such as vendors. Perhaps the company has a dry-cleaning bill to pay. The basic way of paying other companies is an invoice is issued which describes the service or services provided and the fee for those goods or services. The company receiving the invoice would verify that it had received the goods or services, and that it wasn't being overcharged. If the company didn't have some checks over your power to pay invoices, you could have a friend working at the dry-cleaning company create some fake invoices that were purposefully overcharged and with you approving payment. You two thieves would then split the money after leaving the company. To guard against this behavior, companies implement financial controls. In this area of accounts payable (paying vendors), they may split the duties of processing invoices and verifying the goods have been received from approving payments so that no one man has too much control and becomes capable of fraud. In a similar manner, the Constitution divided up the federal Government such that those who write the laws aren't the ones who would enforce them. These are called checks and balances, but in the financial world they are called controls.

The problem with people is that, power over people, in all its forms, coalesces and eventually attracts psychopaths or those who seek power over people for its own sake. Government is no exception. Government leadership is often composed of the types of people, those drawn to power, that it is trying to protect the people against! To mitigate this tendency in men and to ensure that no one man or group of men ever becomes too powerful, the government had its power split up with a number of checks and balances, most notably, those who execute the laws do not write the laws. Why?

Imagine if you had the job of both writing and enforcing the law. If you were a fox, you could write a law that said: "Everyone must pay me 10% of their money or go to jail". Perhaps you are the honest sort and would never do this, but perhaps not everyone is as honest as you. Further, there is a tendency of power to corrupt man over time. Men are by their very nature fallible and eventually turn from their first principles without realizing it, all the while holding a belief everything is still on track according to their original principles. In simple terms, this is called rationalization.

A simple example of this principle is seen in the organization that calls itself People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA's purpose is to raise awareness about treating animals with respect i.e., not kill them, but eventually that is precisely the types of activities its members were engaged in - rationalizing the the means justifying the end. It seems that since all men and, by proxy, all organizations, are fallible, it would be best to design a government which accounts for this reality.

Thus, a well designed system would make sure that the people have the power to put the government in its place by making participants in the government limited in what they can do.

Yet, the people themselves can sometimes turn into a lynch mob - so having order in the form of a government can perhaps mitigate this tendency in the people. Thus, the ideal government would somehow limit the lynch mob aspect of the people while limiting the ability of the government to harm the very people it is meant to protect. To achieve this aim, checks and balances were instituted in the government and as exemplified in this quote: "The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." (See 1992 Supreme Court opinion on the framers’ reasoning behind the state consent requirement (New York v. U.S)) However, over time the balance between the people and the government has been upset. The founding fathers did much to delay this natural tendency for organizations of men to turn from their first principles; however, it didn't take long for the Constitution to become warped against its original design. The road to recovery begins by understanding how we deviated from where we started and actions that can be taken to maximize the freedoms for your grandchildren.

Students in American schools are generally taught the basics about the separation of powers and checks and balances between the three main branches of the federal government, but what is not covered are the many other checks and balances especially those over matters of taxation, the balance of power with the States, and ultimately the power retained in the people most notably via the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Perhaps the most important concept that is rarely understood is Federalism.

Federalism

Federalism is simple: the United State Constitution and its Bill of Rights was written to restrain the Federal Government, not the State governments, or the people. The only exception is where NOT restraining the states would undermine the purpose of the power delegated to the Federal government by the United States Constitution.

Let's say I asked you to deliver a package for me. I would have to give you the right to carry the package in order to deliver it. However, to ensure that you don't open the package, I might say that the only rights you have are those which I have delegated to you, everything else is reserved for me. This is similar to how the Constitution for the United States was written.

To keep the federal government in check, there were very specific powers it was granted in the United State Constitution which was ratified by the states using delegates selected by the people. The powers where Congress was authorized to pass laws are called the enumerated powers.They included things like the postal service for delivering messages between states (to facilitate the legal system), declaring war, etc. The idea was that the Federal government would act on matters outside or in between states such as making treaties, delivering the mail, or going to war, but not IN the states.

Further, there were specific limitations placed on the Government through the Bill of Rights. In essence, the Constitution is a list of specific things the government CAN do, with the Bill of Rights further limiting it and including a very specific requirement that everything not described in the Constitution belongs to the states or the people. The state governments are starting to remember this, but the people have long forgotten. This is why the states have their own constitutions which may seem to contradict the federal government, and why stating that the second amendment IS your weapons carry permit, while in the state of New Jersey, will be irrelevant from the perspective of the NJ state government, and may very well get you arrested or killed if you attempt to assert that the 2nd amendment is your carry permit while in New Jersey.

Jim Babka of downsizedc.org had this to say about the "Doctrine of Enumerated Powers: Based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as the Federalist Papers which pre-date those amendments, ONLY those powers which are explicitly listed in the Constitution belong to the federal government. Application: The Constitution gives Congress the power to set rules for naturalization (but not to limit it). Nowhere is Congress given the power to regulate human travel or the right to work (without warranted probable cause or individualized due process). And the laws they will create, to do these unconstitutional things, will be used to crush the liberty of the citizens already enrolled. Which is why the Congress wasn't given the power to regulate these natural, human behaviors in the first place."

As support of the foregoing, review the following preamble to the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution:

"Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. " (emphasis mine).

  • In a similar way, one of the principal authors of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote regarding this same topic.

"The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking that, in all the contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment [became the 10th amendment], now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that 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." (emphasis mine) [20]

  • the Virginia ratification of the United States constitution also supported this view.

"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will… " (emphasis mine) [21]

  • And Thomas Jefferson described a similar reasoning in the failed Kentucky resolution, which was a failed attempt to reel in the corruption of the Constitution.

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress" [24]

  • The 39th session of Congress, while debating the 14th amendment, also confirms this view [todo: add reference]
  • The Delaware ratifying convention also confirms this view [todo: add reference]
  • Further consider, that were the government not limited, then several of the clauses could be used to mean ... just about anything and overtime, this is EXACTLY what has happened.

There is an additional hidden benefit to Federalism. If we take the concept of free market competition and apply it to the States, we can see there might be a type of competition between the states for citizens (and money they bring) by virtue of the state that best represents a person's values through the state's legal system. States could pass or revoke laws designed to attract citizenry. Maybe some states, like New Jersey, would be more restrictive and attract folks that prefer that type of legal environment and other states such as Texas would attract people who prefer less regulation. Why would anyone want more regulation? Well, many companies prefer to use the States of New York and Delaware for homing due to the extensive commercial laws in those states! We can see how this currently works as people are moving to states with better economic conditions such as Texas. Oh, New York won't let me have a pistol? No problem - I'll move to Texas or Kansas. Texas won't let me marry my gay partner while I have a pistol on my hip? No, problem I'll move to New Hampshire where I can have a pistol and marry my gay partner. There is, of course, some inherent logistical challenges to this form of competition.

Judicial Review

Another concept which seems to have resulted in a gradual etching away of the principles in the Constitution is Judicial Review. Judicial Review started when the federal government, via the judicial arm, began to grant itself power through a 'little' Supreme court case called Marbury vs. Madison. When I was taught this in high school, it always seemed quite strange - one day the court decided that they had the power to decide things for the other two branches. "Isn't that sort of like letting the fox guard the hen house?", I said to myself. The result is that the federal government gave itself the power to interpret the terms of its own 'contract' rather than defer to Article V which was probably more appropriate. Let that sink in for a moment! Judicial Review may have some historical precedent for it that predates the Constitution and was discussed during various state ratification debates, but a few quotes from the esteemed Thomas Jefferson might indicate why it wasn't included explicitly: "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." (emphasis mine) "In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please" (emphasis mine) "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." (emphasis mine) [12] Despite Thomas Jefferson's objections, Judicial Review proceeded, and as time has drawn on it has become quite clear - the federal government (through the courts) has made some 'adjustments' to the law: In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. And some of the justices have 'mysteriously' determined that the federal government can do WHATEVER it wants as it applies to the states: "Under the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Government had the power to issue commands to the States. See Arts. VIII, IX. Because that indirect exercise of federal power proved ineffective, the Framers of the Constitution empowered the Federal Government to exercise legislative authority directly over individuals within the States, even though that direct authority constituted a greater intrusion on State sovereignty. Nothing in that history suggests that the Federal Government may not also impose its will upon the several States as it did under the Articles. The Constitution enhanced, rather than diminished, the power of the Federal Government." - See, focusing on: "the constitution enhanced . . . the power of the Federal Government." [29]

Incorporation via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

The 14th amendment was basically a legal tool to provide former slaves with civil rights. After the 14th amendment was passed, there were a number of concerns raised about it being used to circumvent the concept of Federalism. Well, that's what eventually happened. The addition of the 14th amendment allowed the federal courts to gradually force the states to recognize the rights listed in the federal Bill of Rights. This is a fairly recent development for it wasn't until 1947 in "Adamson v California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]) when the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights" [17]

But, such gains are not without a cost -- the same mechanism (the 14th amendment) that is used incorporate (force) federal laws to apply to the states is being used to force one-size-fits-all decisions on the states. This results in fun things like 5-4 decisions affecting 300 million people with specific examples being forcing people to bake cakes that are contrary to their religious beliefs, serve people they don't want to serve, or marry people they don't want to marry. As an aside, don't get me wrong, I think such actions as refusing to bake a cake because someone is gay is cruel, but I also believe that people have a basic right of association, to refuse service for whatever reason they want. Basically, you don't have to bake a "gay cake" if you don't want to, any more than I should be forced to bake a "gay people suck cake" if I don't want to! That's the cost of freedom. However, if the system is allowed to function as designed, that is, with competition among bakers, it allows for different shops to emerge that may cater to different belief systems or expressing a desire to be apart from different types of people.

The 14th amendment text is admittedly rather difficult to decipher without the benefit of the 39th session of Congress.

The text is as follows: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Strict Construction to the General Welfare Clause

A particularly blatant reinterpretation of the Constitution is centered around the general welfare clause. Remember when it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the first part of the 1900s? Then later the Drug Enforcement act didn't require an amendment? Why? Read about what happened in 1937 where the federal government granted itself even more power by interpreting - through the courts - the general welfare clause to mean just about anything! The governor of Texas recently commissioned a project to analyze where the Federal government has usurped power and came to the same conclusion, but also expanded the conclusion to include the interstate commerce clause and others as being used by the Federal government to usurp power.

The Income Tax

The funds the Federal government obtains from the income tax are used as a carrot stick to encourage compliance with the federal laws. While this is not necessarily a bad thing that there may be some standardization across the states, it is not without a cost - standardization and the carrot sticks removes incentives for state governments to compete for citizens - resulting in poor laws, lack of innovation, a one-size-fits-all approach that lacks sufficient flexibility to deal with individual conditions.

Tender

"The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". This means that no State can make something besides gold or silver a "tender in payment" (which means they cannot "make something else an offer as payment") for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State. However, EVERY State in the United States of America HAS made some other "Thing" an offer as payment - they have by law declared that they will accept, and pay out, Federal Reserve Notes for any debts owed by or to them. Therefore, every State is in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Thus the need for the "Constitutional Tender Act" -- a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution's actual legal tender provisions. [34]

Naturalization vs. Immigration

See [35]: @ 28:40 Naturalization was a federal function, immigration was state function

Congressional Oligarchy and Resistance to Change

The problem is that senators and congressmen are locked into a system - they won’t easily give up power either. It could be compared to being in the stage right before a gun fight begins - if anyone flinches or moves a muscle, everyone dies in a gun fight. So Republicans have to keep fighting and Democrats keep fighting otherwise they will give up ground. Unfortunately, the result is that Congressmen who have been in office for some time tend to control the rest of Congress! It has been noted that there are about 30 representatives and Senators who control the whole thing.

The Legal System

todo: blame game stifles innovation - probably a separate article needed here.

Corruption in Voting / Political Parties

todo: note the recent corruption exposed by the Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns.



What can be done?

So far this article has covered some of the major problems that have resulted in the gradual erosion of the Constitution, but there is also the problem of restoration. Sometimes the solution can be worse than the problem. We still have plenty of freedom - for example, this article! Further, the system is a huge machine and due to the entropy in the system, it is unlikely it will change for the better on a large scale. This leaves us with actions that we can do as individuals. To guide such a movement, any changes must be carefully weighed out and considered against the principle that they will likely result in their opposite unless the opposite effect is accounted for. In other words, actions taken need to be holistic - considering multiple viewpoints, perspectives, and strive to be the closest approximation of what can be realistically done. Try to think what could happen if everyone does an action taken.

Change Challenges

Before proceeding further, we'll cover some of the challenges in implementing change.


Law Retention

Currently, there is a fairly standardized base of rules used for automobile traffic. Red lights at an intersection indicate the traffic should STOP and green lights indicate that traffic should go. Let's say that for whatever reason, we wanted to change the colors - making Red, GO, and Green, STOP. It could be argued that such a change would cause a number of car accidents, so even if we wanted to change the color of the lights - it is probably unrealistic to try. In like manner, some of the more extreme measures such as an invocation of Article V to convene the state legislatures to redo the Constitution could result in more harm than good when we factor in the amount of confusion present in today's culture concerning the constitution. For a visual, see the below picture taken the morning after Sweden changed from driving on the left side to driving on the right (1967).

Scaling

With a government of our size, some things work better when scaled up - such as national defense, whereas others require more local control. With a nation that has so many diverse backgrounds as our, a one-size-fit-all approach results in failed legislation. National defense may work well on a larger scale, but this also introduces inefficiencies.

Change Control

Even if we were to correct the flaws in understanding and implementation of the Constitution, the usurpations of power, and so forth - this situation has been in 'production' for over 200 years and it is unlikely, perhaps dangerous to attempt to change such things without a real idea of what the outcome might be. It's the only government we have - imagine accidentally triggering a revolution and the resulting loss in life that might occur.

Power Vacuums

We toppled the Iraqi government, then pulled out and the resulting power vacuum is called ISIS?


Historical Performance

todo: Just because something was once done a certain way, doesn't mean it must continue to be done that way. this also doesn’t consider the reality of inheritances - over time money would tend to coalesce. Money buys power.

Tools of Change for Individuals

Our founding fathers built in numerous peaceful mechanisms to change the system, but it requires each of to do our part - to become educated on how the system works and perhaps what can be done is to challenge the system at its weak points as individual or as a group of citizens - very similar to how gay people challenge the system to effectively force people to bake cakes for them. Before engaging the system - a careful study of its operation is necessary. This could include understanding the process of obtaining basic legal recognition through documents such as a birth certificate, marriage license, and passport. There is also challenging the state in court via the common law system where the citizenry has an advantage. In some states, this seems to work OK, in others, it has landed many jail time and a slew of protesters who clog up the courts for mostly bogus reasons (IMO)!

Be the Change

Very difficult to boil an ocean - be the change, Ghandi, Sinclair

The following areas will cover some of the tools available for an individual to challenge the system (via the courts, by writing articles such as this, by educating sons and daughters):

Citizenship

todo: Understand the hows and whys of citizenship. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf

Jurisdiction

todo: Take note that Judicial Review seems to have found its way into the courts despite it not being explicitly mentioned. This tends to imply that there are some concepts which exist OUTSIDE of the Constitution that pertain to the court system. The Term, Jurisdiction, itself seems to have become lost. See article from 1215.org

Jury Nullification

todo:

Habeas Corpus

todo: Perhaps our modern legal system arose out of a long ago need to document agreements - making things clear for all parties to an agreement, but the result has been that over time our Government has gotten so complex, that even the Government doesn't understand how it works. One doesn't have to look very far for proof of this - over the past 200 years, the Supreme Court has made wildly different interpretations of Constitutional clauses - most notably the Intrastate Commerce clause and the General Welfare clauses.

The Education System

todo:the role of home school

The Media, the Press, the Internet

todo: writing blogs, facebook, etc.

The Internet

todo: *in progress discussion point * Requirement to install Kazikstani root certs

Term Limits / Remove the Incumbents

todo: *in progress discussion point * Refer to Brett Rogers' plan step 2 under Action Steps Summary below.


Action Steps Summary:

  • Recognize that this world is the way it is for a reason that could escape us, but that doesn't confine us to complacency while here!
  • Prove me or yourself wrong and tell me what can be improved in this article.
  • Share the knowledge.
  • With an open mind- grow your own understanding. Set out to prove concepts right or wrong and harmonize different perspectives. Learn for yourself, see https://www.libertyclassroom.com/topbooks/.
  • Boot out incumbents, see here: http://www.3502018.com
  • Learn about marketing and niches, effective slogans, (hat tip to Brett Rodgers)
  • There are a number of proposals to reel in Congress such as Term Limits. While such proposals sound good in principle, but it is unlikely that Congress will ever restrain its own power unless we boot out the incumbents.
  • Learn how the government (the bureaucracy) works:
  • Obtain Common Law Driver's License just because *todo add link*
  • Obtain Passport (see 1215.org) *todo add link*
  • Send letter without a zip code (add link)
  • Learn about Jury Nullification
  • Learn about the 10th amendment, see http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com
  • Find out about the politics in your state - here is a good resource: http://openstates.org/about/
  • Support the Constitutional Sheriffs: http://www.sheriffbrigadesofpenn.com/2012/09/18/the-victory-for-state-sovereignty-2/
  • Join DownsizeDC . org and support their Amicus Briefs, Read the Bills Act, and One Subject at a Time Act:
  • https://downsizedc.org/blog/free-press-amicus-brief-in-citizens-united-case
  • Make Congress read their bills before voting
  • Stop Congress from combining unrelated bills
  • Don't let Congress delegate its law-making powers to the Executive Branch bureaucracy.
  • Stop inflation, bubbles, and recessions by permitting free market money to compete with Federal Reserve Notes.
  • The best way to prevent bad laws - Legislative Quality Control.
  • Support a Line item Veto - (has a cost - Senator Rand Paul has used line items quite effectively to stop some legislative packages)
  • Determine where your representatives actually stand on the issues before voting ontheissues.org
  • With rare exception, take note that before your Congressman will listen to you, you must have money!
  • Try out National Write your Congressman: http://www.nwyc.com
  • Find out who is donating to who to who in your area and considering becoming friends:

http://www.campaignmoney.com http://votesmart.org/

  • Challenge the Constitutionality of laws, but remember the Judiciary is part of the federal government - there is a basic conflict of interest regarding Constitutionality when attending such courts. You may very well be right, but it won't matter if they don't agree with you! For some interesting discussions of the courts using a 'common law' approach see 1215.org.
  • Instead of suing in Federal court, which could be compared to Goliad [35], instead use the state to enforce the Constitution.
  • There are many other alternative measures that could be taken, that are listed as follows:

Conceptual Measures

The Hundreds

  • todo: Thomas Jefferson's Plan to restore the republic. How would it work in modern times - could it be virtual?

Virtual Country

todo:

Open Source Government Design and Liberty Simulator

todo: Open source constitution - design new governments to fix situations

Credits

  • My lovely wife
  • My friends: S. Jones and S. Warren
  • On Facebook: Keep Texas Free


Bibliography and Credits



Parking Lot

Ideas under development

the State of Texas Constitution

Does this mean a few of my people could inform the State of Texas that we have declared our own micro-government?

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." (emphasis mine)

New Hampshire vs. Vermont (how is Bernie Sanders' utopia working out?)

The Ethiopian Constitution

SeaLand

Virtual Country

World Citizen


Movements

todo: In any movement, there is the public outcry and it seems there is a spear or an event that leads the outcry. Examples follow: todo:Founder of Green Peace and the Boat todo:The man who flew the plane into the Kremlin todo:Football - wishbone formation todo:First person to get thanksgiving dinner

Retrieved from "http://www.kspect.net/wiki/index.php?title=Constitution_for_the_Common_Man&oldid=27"