Common Sense Too
........... Part1 ............
Thank You TP
Common Sense Too
........... Part2 ............
Bill of Rights
Common Sense Too
........... Part3 ............
Common Sense Too
........... Part4 ............
Common Sense Too: Part 4
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."- Thomas Jefferson
I call for a Constitutional Convention to renew our natural rights and liberties. But first we must prepare for this event as tyrants will try to use this process as a means to cement their power and permanently take our natural rights. We must study and pass on the knowledge that is our natural rights as generations have passed and time has eroded the vision to freedom and liberty that none the less still resides in each personís heart and soul.
We must be prepared to do everything in our power to fight for our natural rights and protect this process as failure would forever doom us and our posterity to great peril and a subservient existence more than we can even imagine. The wants of tyrants has no bounds. Their power rests in control of our lives. We need to enlighten as many of our countrymen as possible to the vision that their hearts seek, the vision that has been lost through apathy and neglect. But a majority is not required to reach our goals as the efforts of those following his own natural rights will far exceed the efforts of those who are merely motivated by their own fears while sacrificing their own rights.
I put forth this preamble to a new constitution as a starting point for a constitutional convention. I would suggest that the only bill of rights contained in the constitution should be contained in the preamble and these first three paragraphs should form the mission statement for the formation of our government.
This mission statement will guard against the tyranny of the judiciary. Many claim that our current constitution is a living document. The words can be combined and interpreted and selectively ignored while pulling out the parts that meet the politicians needs while ignoring others that contradict their intentions. We ignore the original design of the constitution while pretending we are following the rule of law.
The new preamble will be superior over all other portions of the constitution as the preamble is the bill of rights and the simple design that leaves no questions to the limited power of the government. Here is my proposed preamble for a Government with limited powers that respect the peopleís individual sovereignty as is their natural right:
We the Sovereign People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, defend our God given rights as individuals, and to secure the blessings of prosperity and Liberty to ourselves, our families, and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of American and between sovereign citizens of good standing.
As governments are the vehicle to insure but also maximize individual sovereignty, all laws and actions of governments shall be limited to only those that secure and promote individual sovereignty amongst the people. The powers not delegated to the governments by the Constitution are reserved to the people.
As the federal government is a vehicle to provide for the common defense, to insure tranquility amongst the states, and to protect the natural rights of sovereign individuals, all laws and actions contrary to these ends shall be prohibited. This preamble shall be superior to all other Article and Amendment set forth below rendering any portion in conflict unenforceable.
These three paragraphs are the mission statement about which this constitution would be designed. Any amendments or changes that are inconsistent with this design would require a new constitutional convention and a new constitution. This would prevent manipulation by tyrants who would try to modify the constitution to meet their designs.
The first paragraph states our natural rights and enables the government limited powers as given from the people. The government only has power as given to it from the people. The second paragraph is intended to bring the states under the jurisdiction of the constitution. The states must also respect the natural rights of the people and must also be limited to actions that promote individual sovereignty and liberty. The third paragraph limits the federal government to an even higher standard as the federal government only has power in three areas of governance.
The federal government can make laws and take actions, such as instituting and financing the military, to provide for the common defense. The federal government can make laws and take actions to resolve disputes between states. They can also engage is activities that promote tranquility among states. An example of this might be establishing a national currency. Finally the federal government is empowered to protect the natural rights of individuals when the state governments violate the second paragraph above. The second and third paragraphs become the bill of rights for the people.
The right to bear arms is no longer required as it is covered by this new preamble. Letís revisit the issue of bazookas versus guns to explore the logic of this new design. The design is that each individual has the maximum sovereignty over their own lives possible to the point of not violating the rights and sovereignty of their neighbor. The government is the tool to strike this balance. Under the second paragraph of the preamble above all governments shall be limited to only those powers that secure and promote individual sovereignty.
As a person needs a tool to protect his own sovereignty, and as this is the design of our new government, the right to bear arms would be a vehicle to promote individual sovereignty. Governments would be required to maximize this right under the above wording as any unreasonable restrictions would be counter to promoting individual sovereignty.
But each personís individual sovereignty must be balanced with respecting the individual sovereignty of their neighbor. Rights are not unlimited as taking rights to an extreme in turn violates the rights of others. The right to bear a bazooka could be restricted under the above preamble because the bazooka is not a practical tool for protecting oneís own individual sovereignty while at the same time there is an extreme risk of violating the individual sovereignty of oneís neighbor. The balance of sovereignty holds the individualís sovereignty to the highest standard while balancing that sovereignty with that of your fellow countrymen.
This concept would apply to all natural rights, not just the right to bear arms. Our free speech rights would also fall under our rights as sovereign individuals. However under the current interpretation of the first amendment our current government gives almost unlimited freedom of speech. Some use our constitution as a shield against us while they speak of violating the very same rights of their neighbors. Under the preamble above each person would have the right to free speech as it is their sovereign right as long as that exercise does not infringe on the sovereign rights of his neighbor.
For example journalists writing to expose government plans to catch terrorists, at the smame time this speech endangers their fellow countrymen, would be considered traitors and their speech would not be protected. Another example would be if the Nazi Party were spreading a massage that only some men have rights under the guise of a parade. The government would be in its power to prevent that parade as this speech would clearly not meet the balance of sovereignty versus responsibility that is required for individual sovereignty.
Property rights would be given the highest standing in this new constitution as private property rights would promote and enhance individual sovereignty. Governments could still use eminent domain as required for roads and infrastructure as long as a case can be made for those assets causing an overall increase in freedom and liberty. But the taking of private property from one countryman for the benefit of another countryman or for the benefit of the government would be an affront to the concept of individual sovereignty.
Government can be the tool to promote harmony amongst individuals as state regulations are required to prevent anarchy and chaos but government must not become the tool of tyrants by protecting two neighbors from each other to a degree advantageous to the politicians and not required by the offended.
One example that can be given is that the state can justify standards in the production of food to protect one individual purchasing food from another individual from unforeseen health risks. The state could enact laws controlling quality standards on the farmer as those standards could protect the rights of the consumer. But a tyrant given this opportunity would use his position of power to take all control over the commerce of farming as he would claim it is his duty to protect his fellow countrymen.
Each power given to agencies of the government must be justified as each power is an intrusion on individual sovereignty. Only those powers that protect one individual from the misdeeds of another individual can be accepted as lawful. The state shall not have the authority to regulate issues that both parties are fully aware of and are in agreement over as both parties are to be afforded their individual sovereignty. We need strong government as a tool to protect ourselves from each other and to promote order. We need to limit the power of government as it can become a tool of tyrants.
As the federal government is empowered to promote tranquility amongst the states, it can assist the states in powers reserved to the states at the pleasure of the states. The states can not give powers to the federal government that the states themselves have no jurisdiction over as those powers rest with sovereign individuals.
Letís use the food and drug administration as an example. We need standards in the food and drug industries so that a consumerís rights can be protected. The consumer needs the standards so that they can be assured the product they are purchasing from a producer is what they are intending to purchase. This function can be justified under a state government. Some states may be perfectly suited performing this function but other states may see the wisdom in combining their efforts to promote uniformity and efficiency. The federal government can have a food and drug administration under the third paragraph of the preamble above to promote tranquility amongst states. But as the power of the federal government is limited this administration would only serve those states that give this responsibility to the federal government.
As tyranny through taxation will occur when the government taxes away peopleís rights while giving them the option to participate in a program, the administration can only use money taxed from those participating in the program to fund the administration. States that option out of the program shall be assessed no penalty or tax. The states would act as a check and balance on federal programs. As long as federal programs are conducted in a fair, efficient, and equitable manor the states will choose to participate in those programs. But if the programs become overregulated and tyrannical the states can option out on a yearly basis rendering the agency obsolete. The power is still reserved with the states and with the people.
The text of the preamble above is only a starting point for a new constitution. We must discuss and debate the best way to word and organize the document to best serve the needs of the people. But no compromise is acceptable in regards to individualís inalienable rights so the design must be consistent with protecting each personís right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Here are some issues to consider when debating the design of the Articles within a new constitution:
Add a commentary as a supplement to the constitution. When future issues arise that do not fit neatly into the constitutional text the judiciary could read the commentary of the framers of the constitution to determine the intent of that section of the constitution and use this as a guide in their rulings.
Ban the influence of parties in government. As each person is a sovereign individual the formation and existence of parties can not be prevented. But those parties can be kept outside of government. Elections should only list individualís names while leaving off party affiliation. Organization of committees and rules of conduct must be free from party hierarchies. Each congressman must come to congress focused on representing the interests of his constituents free from the pressures of the parties.
As we have seen the tyranny that can result from judicial activism we must consider means of providing additional checks and balances over the Supreme Court. We could consider empowering a convention of governors with a process to bring Supreme Court Justices up for a vote in a General Election.
Congress shall begin each new bill that they create with a paragraph explaining how each power contained in the bill is enabled by the constitution. Before any bill can become law the first paragraph must be reviewed by the Supreme Court to determine if the powers contained there within are in fact enabled by the constitution. The Supreme Court may only reject bills based on constitutionality. The Supreme Court may not modify bills or suggest remedies to bills.
As our current state of tyranny is mainly caused by overreaching taxing authority of congress consider restrictions on those taxing powers. Limit congress to one or two forms of taxation as they currently hide the extent of their tyranny in multi-layered tax schemes, printing money, userís fees, invisible taxes through corporations, ect. A national sales tax would be one possibility. The taxpayers would then be able to see and understand the extent that their government is taxing them. This power of taxation could be tiered. For example a 10% tax burden would only require a majority vote of congress to be enacted, of coarse only to fund functions allowed by the constitution. A 15% tax burden would require a 60% majority vote, a 20% tax burden would require a 66% majority vote, and any tax burden over 20% tax burden would require a 80% majority vote of both houses of congress.
Sunset all bills passed by congress. As a Senators term is 6 years all bills passed by congress must come back before congress every 6 years for affirmation in its entirety. Any bill not reaffirmed shall become null and void and must be resubmitted for consideration using normal processes.
The debate must begin. The natural rights of the individuals must be restored. Together we can reach for Freedom and Liberty.