A Universal Voting Rights Amendment
The Constitution has no provision for universal voting rights, just add-on amendments prohibiting denial of voting rights based on race, gender, and age (18-20 year olds). This still makes no constitutional provision guaranteeing equal representation for Americans living abroad (just a recent statutory provision that could be repealed) and no provision for residents of DC to have equal representation. Replace this patchwork of Amendments with one universal voting rights guarantee Amendment.
If we were modeling the above proposal on the Second Amendment, we might write it like this:
"The Consent of the Governed, being necessary to the legitimacy of a free society's governance, the right of the people to vote and be represented, shall not be infringed."
However, I've been told that such phrasing is barely even English (which may say something about the Second Amendment as well).
Monday, June 11, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
I am not free
"So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote,
I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me.
I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact —
I can only submit to the edict of others." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
"So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote,
I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me.
I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact —
I can only submit to the edict of others." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Saturday, October 23, 2010
To WV Public Broadcasting
"Connecting Communities"
An admirable goal, but considering that WV Public Broadcasting consistently, persistently and insistently refuses to acknowledge that they EXCLUDE me (and more than a half-million of my neighbors, ordinary Americans all) from participation in the country of my birth, the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are overwhelming.
I spend every weekend (given my work schedule, that amounts to 6-7 days out of every two weeks, or nearly half my time) in WV, much of it listening to WV Public Radio. I am a native of Wisconsin, and, inspired largely by JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" line, have spent the last 35 years of my life serving the people of the fifty States. In spite of my pretty well-established bona fides as a loyal American, and in spite of the ostensible principle of "Consent of the Governed" upon which our participatory form of government is founded, WV Public Radio refuses to acknowledge, recognize, or respect the principle that the roughly one-in-600 Americans who happen to live in DC, have the same fundamental and inalienable rights to participate in our nation as the other 599 who live elsewhere, whether it be in the fifty states, or as expatriates abroad.
This stance is unprincipled, and hypocritical. Shame on you!
Consent of the Governed. Equality, Nothing More, but Equality, Nothing Less. "Your" Constitution notwithstanding (DC denizens have had no input to "your" constitution since 1801, so it becomes less and less "our" constitution with every amendment into which we DC denizens have had no input), those principles, and those rights, are innate, inherent, intrinsic, ....inalienable. What is lacking is YOUR respect for and recognition of that fact. Again, shame on you for being such ill-informed and unprincipled citizens as to let this situation persist for this long.
Until DC denizens are allowed to participate equally (perhaps, at least similarly to the other expatriate Americans abroad), DC stands for "Decline Cooperation".
No Pledge for YOU!
"Connecting Communities"
An admirable goal, but considering that WV Public Broadcasting consistently, persistently and insistently refuses to acknowledge that they EXCLUDE me (and more than a half-million of my neighbors, ordinary Americans all) from participation in the country of my birth, the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are overwhelming.
I spend every weekend (given my work schedule, that amounts to 6-7 days out of every two weeks, or nearly half my time) in WV, much of it listening to WV Public Radio. I am a native of Wisconsin, and, inspired largely by JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" line, have spent the last 35 years of my life serving the people of the fifty States. In spite of my pretty well-established bona fides as a loyal American, and in spite of the ostensible principle of "Consent of the Governed" upon which our participatory form of government is founded, WV Public Radio refuses to acknowledge, recognize, or respect the principle that the roughly one-in-600 Americans who happen to live in DC, have the same fundamental and inalienable rights to participate in our nation as the other 599 who live elsewhere, whether it be in the fifty states, or as expatriates abroad.
This stance is unprincipled, and hypocritical. Shame on you!
Consent of the Governed. Equality, Nothing More, but Equality, Nothing Less. "Your" Constitution notwithstanding (DC denizens have had no input to "your" constitution since 1801, so it becomes less and less "our" constitution with every amendment into which we DC denizens have had no input), those principles, and those rights, are innate, inherent, intrinsic, ....inalienable. What is lacking is YOUR respect for and recognition of that fact. Again, shame on you for being such ill-informed and unprincipled citizens as to let this situation persist for this long.
Until DC denizens are allowed to participate equally (perhaps, at least similarly to the other expatriate Americans abroad), DC stands for "Decline Cooperation".
No Pledge for YOU!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
An Alternative Solution
At the very least, residents of DC should, under the fundamental principle of " ...Just Power derives from the Consent of the Governed...", be allowed, as are military personnel and (other) expatriates, to participate in developing the national consensus by voting in the State of their choice, whether or not they actually reside there at the moment. Just let them each individually affiliate with a single State at the time of each census, and vote there absentee, during the following decade.
And DC should have the same degree of autonomy that other States have. No state can be compelled to surrender their individual sovereignty absent a constitutional amendment ratified by three fourths of the other states. Similarly, DC should have to submit to the power of Congress on individual issues only when the compelling national interest is such that a three-fourths vote of both houses can demonstrate an overwhelming national consensus that the compelling national interest requires DC to do so.
At the very least, residents of DC should, under the fundamental principle of " ...Just Power derives from the Consent of the Governed...", be allowed, as are military personnel and (other) expatriates, to participate in developing the national consensus by voting in the State of their choice, whether or not they actually reside there at the moment. Just let them each individually affiliate with a single State at the time of each census, and vote there absentee, during the following decade.
And DC should have the same degree of autonomy that other States have. No state can be compelled to surrender their individual sovereignty absent a constitutional amendment ratified by three fourths of the other states. Similarly, DC should have to submit to the power of Congress on individual issues only when the compelling national interest is such that a three-fourths vote of both houses can demonstrate an overwhelming national consensus that the compelling national interest requires DC to do so.
Monday, October 11, 2010
In response to the following post...
http://q-thesophist.blogspot.com/2010/10/dc-voting-rights.html
"I have a proposal to address the long-festering issue of DC voting rights.
First let me frame the issue:
As a libertarian, I believe that the citizens residing in Washington DC have the inalienable right to have a voice in choosing their elected representatives.
But, I also believe that Washington DC was created sui generis to be our national capitol, outside the jurisdiction of any state. Therefore DC statehood as a remedy completely misses the point. Two new Democrat Senators is also a non-starter to Republicans who would have to approve such a measure.
My proposal: let all members of the District of Columbia select a ‘state of residence’ in which they will vote for Senate and House candidates. Their votes will also count toward presidential electors in that state. This is akin to the way military service members can select a state of residence regardless of where they are actually assigned.
This does one main thing. It ensures that the citizens votes will actually count. The voting rights activists say they want only equal representation in Congress. Conservatives say, “move to a state." I say they can have what they want, without having to move.
It is ironically great for conservatives. If you are a conservative resident of the District, your vote will never count (I think 98% of Washington DC voters voted for President Obama.) The democratic primary for mayor is (for all intents and purposes) the election for mayor. This is depressing for conservative residents. At least under my system, those conservative residents could cast their votes elsewhere, perhaps a battleground state where they will matter.
Ultimate control of the city should rest with Congress, as it is a federal enclave. Practically, they can delegate that responsibility on a day-to-day basis to the mayor and city council. But DC should never be seen as a state or near state. It is not. If the residents want their vote to matter, we can make that happen. If they want more, too bad.
It is terribly ironic that the overwhelmingly democratic residents of DC usually enthusiastically and unquestioningly support the Left’s agenda of centralized planning and strong federal control. Yet when it comes time to walk the walk, they complain about the federal government’s plenary power over them, and insist they want independence and self government...
... there is a teachable moment in there somewhere."
http://q-thesophist.blogspot.com/2010/10/dc-voting-rights.html
"Friday, October 8, 2010 DC Voting Rights"
"I have a proposal to address the long-festering issue of DC voting rights.
First let me frame the issue:
As a libertarian, I believe that the citizens residing in Washington DC have the inalienable right to have a voice in choosing their elected representatives.
But, I also believe that Washington DC was created sui generis to be our national capitol, outside the jurisdiction of any state. Therefore DC statehood as a remedy completely misses the point. Two new Democrat Senators is also a non-starter to Republicans who would have to approve such a measure.
My proposal: let all members of the District of Columbia select a ‘state of residence’ in which they will vote for Senate and House candidates. Their votes will also count toward presidential electors in that state. This is akin to the way military service members can select a state of residence regardless of where they are actually assigned.
This does one main thing. It ensures that the citizens votes will actually count. The voting rights activists say they want only equal representation in Congress. Conservatives say, “move to a state." I say they can have what they want, without having to move.
It is ironically great for conservatives. If you are a conservative resident of the District, your vote will never count (I think 98% of Washington DC voters voted for President Obama.) The democratic primary for mayor is (for all intents and purposes) the election for mayor. This is depressing for conservative residents. At least under my system, those conservative residents could cast their votes elsewhere, perhaps a battleground state where they will matter.
Ultimate control of the city should rest with Congress, as it is a federal enclave. Practically, they can delegate that responsibility on a day-to-day basis to the mayor and city council. But DC should never be seen as a state or near state. It is not. If the residents want their vote to matter, we can make that happen. If they want more, too bad.
It is terribly ironic that the overwhelmingly democratic residents of DC usually enthusiastically and unquestioningly support the Left’s agenda of centralized planning and strong federal control. Yet when it comes time to walk the walk, they complain about the federal government’s plenary power over them, and insist they want independence and self government...
... there is a teachable moment in there somewhere."
- "This is akin to the way military service members can select a state of residence regardless of where they are actually assigned." It is also the way that all (other) expatriate Americans vote (absentee, in the state of their last residence). DC residents are not residents of the "united states", they are effectively expatriates. Additionally, I would add that Congress' plenary power over the District should be limited in the same manner as limits on permanently imposing the general consensus on the minority that may disagree, via constitutional amendment.... It takes a three quarters vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment. It should take a three quarters vote of both houses (representing a compelling national consensus) to impose Congressional oversight over the free people who reside in the District. If these two changes were made, I'd be happy, as a District resident. An equal voice in national affairs (having one congressional representative and two senators, as does every other American), and having an equal degree of local autonomy with residents of the states, would, in my view, suffice.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Which of these quotes is not American?
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;"
Virginia Bill of Rights
" That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good."
Virginia Bill of Rights
"That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Virginia Bill of Rights
"Bad principles in a Govt. tho slow are sure in their operation, and will gradually destroy it."
A. Hamilton
"Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country;..."
J. Madison
"[T]he right of electing the members of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government."
J. Madison
"[M]en cannot be justly bound by laws, in making which they have no share."
J. Madison
" Extreme cases of oppression justify... a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government..."
J. Madison
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
First principles? Like Consent of the Governed?
"The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed."
From "The Mount Vernon Statement", February, 2010
And yet half-a-million-plus Americans have been Governed Without Consent, for more than two centuries, their participation in the national consensus denied, their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) right as free citizens to a fair and equal vote with the rest of their countrymen in determining the affairs of the nation unrecognized and un-respected. Artificial, anachronistic, and arbitrary provisions notwithstanding, under the First Principle of "Consent of the Governed", the national legislature has no legitimate right or authority to assert Absolute Power, as of 1801 (as in "Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District"), than the British Parliament had in 1766 to assert similar power over a similarly unrepresented minority (at the time) of the British nation. No legitimate basis exists to exclude otherwise eligible citizens from full participation in the national debate and concensus simply because of location or proximity. Concepts such as court eunuchs and royal demense are antiquated and feudal, with no place in a government conceptually based on participatory principles such as "All men are created equal". Treating fellow citizens and countrymen in effect as house-slaves, a lower caste, outcasts, expatriates, pariahs and/or exiles, simply because of the location of their residence, diminishes the honor of the nation, and the legitimacy of the government.
"The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed."
From "The Mount Vernon Statement", February, 2010
And yet half-a-million-plus Americans have been Governed Without Consent, for more than two centuries, their participation in the national consensus denied, their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) right as free citizens to a fair and equal vote with the rest of their countrymen in determining the affairs of the nation unrecognized and un-respected. Artificial, anachronistic, and arbitrary provisions notwithstanding, under the First Principle of "Consent of the Governed", the national legislature has no legitimate right or authority to assert Absolute Power, as of 1801 (as in "Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District"), than the British Parliament had in 1766 to assert similar power over a similarly unrepresented minority (at the time) of the British nation. No legitimate basis exists to exclude otherwise eligible citizens from full participation in the national debate and concensus simply because of location or proximity. Concepts such as court eunuchs and royal demense are antiquated and feudal, with no place in a government conceptually based on participatory principles such as "All men are created equal". Treating fellow citizens and countrymen in effect as house-slaves, a lower caste, outcasts, expatriates, pariahs and/or exiles, simply because of the location of their residence, diminishes the honor of the nation, and the legitimacy of the government.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Making Representation Happen
There are MANY ways to accomplish DC representation, but ALL must pass muster with the residents of the fifty states, and NONE depend in any way on the opinions of we DC residents. (If that isn’t close to slavery, I don’t know what IS).
But here’s a suggestion, anyway.
Since expatriate Americans are allowed to vote in the State of their last residence, why not create a similar allowance for (expatriate) DC residents? Allow them to “affiliate” with one of the states and vote there. After all, it does say “people ‘of’ the several states”, not people “residing in” the several states. This would alleviate the partisan problems of making DC a state, or retroceding it to Maryland. I could have moved from my home state to anywhere else in the WORLD (except Washington, DC) and continued voting for the last thirty-five years. And the people of DC are clearly “of” the several states, as opposed to being the people “of” the Asian steppes, or “of” the African savannah, or “of” the Argentinian pampas, or “of” the (Ant-)Arctic tundra.
Look up the definition of the word “of”.
And if you want to alleviate or mitigate an even wider disparity, allow them to affiliate only with the –smaller– states; Wyoming has two Senators for only about half a million people, whereas California has only two Senators for well over 25 million, a greater than fifty-to-one disparity.
That solution, along with a more restrictive limit on the local power of the Congress over DC (for example, make them pass exclusive legislation over DC “in all cases whatsoever” by a super-majority of both houses, if it is for such a compelling national interest!), would resolve most if not all of the objections to the present situation.
Power corrupts, and Absolute Power, “in all cases whatsoever”, corrupts absolutely. Government without Consent is Tyranny.
There are MANY ways to accomplish DC representation, but ALL must pass muster with the residents of the fifty states, and NONE depend in any way on the opinions of we DC residents. (If that isn’t close to slavery, I don’t know what IS).
But here’s a suggestion, anyway.
Since expatriate Americans are allowed to vote in the State of their last residence, why not create a similar allowance for (expatriate) DC residents? Allow them to “affiliate” with one of the states and vote there. After all, it does say “people ‘of’ the several states”, not people “residing in” the several states. This would alleviate the partisan problems of making DC a state, or retroceding it to Maryland. I could have moved from my home state to anywhere else in the WORLD (except Washington, DC) and continued voting for the last thirty-five years. And the people of DC are clearly “of” the several states, as opposed to being the people “of” the Asian steppes, or “of” the African savannah, or “of” the Argentinian pampas, or “of” the (Ant-)Arctic tundra.
Look up the definition of the word “of”.
And if you want to alleviate or mitigate an even wider disparity, allow them to affiliate only with the –smaller– states; Wyoming has two Senators for only about half a million people, whereas California has only two Senators for well over 25 million, a greater than fifty-to-one disparity.
That solution, along with a more restrictive limit on the local power of the Congress over DC (for example, make them pass exclusive legislation over DC “in all cases whatsoever” by a super-majority of both houses, if it is for such a compelling national interest!), would resolve most if not all of the objections to the present situation.
Power corrupts, and Absolute Power, “in all cases whatsoever”, corrupts absolutely. Government without Consent is Tyranny.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
"Protect our democracy" in light of Citizens United ruling...????
PROTECT our Democracy??? How about RESTORE our democracy??? We denizens of DC have been living under the despotic constitutionalism of the District Clause (compare with the Declaratory Act of 1766; in both cases a national legislature arrogates to itself illegitimate, unwarranted absolute power over an unrepresented national minority) for over 200 years.
PROTECT our Democracy??? How about RESTORE our democracy??? We denizens of DC have been living under the despotic constitutionalism of the District Clause (compare with the Declaratory Act of 1766; in both cases a national legislature arrogates to itself illegitimate, unwarranted absolute power over an unrepresented national minority) for over 200 years.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
DC: Despotic Constitutionalism
"When ... man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism."
A. Lincoln, 1854
"Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District as shall become the seat of Government..."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, U. S. Constitution
"When ... man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism."
A. Lincoln, 1854
"Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District as shall become the seat of Government..."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, U. S. Constitution
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
An American Sham(e)
If citizens of the 50 United States actually read, understood, and believed in the noble principles embodied in their Declaration of Independence, they would allow denizens of the Nation's capital, Washington, DC, to participate equally in the life of the Nation, along with their countrymen in the other 50 states. "To secure these rights (among others, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among men, deriving their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." The Consent mentioned in this case is given by participating in the means we as a nation use to reach a national consensus: regular election of a national legislature to make the laws under which we all must live. Shamefully, over half-a-million members of the nation (a larger population than that of the state of Wyoming), residents of the nation's capital, are STILL persistently and deliberately excluded from this process. Though they are part and parcel, progeny and posterity of the same Founders who pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to secure these rights, the Tyranny of their Countrymen has so far precluded DC denizens' participation in the national legislature in any meaningful form. This is an American Sham(e). Washington, DC continues to be Governed Without Consent. This violation of fundamantal first principles results in degradation of governmental legitimacy.
Non-whites are now counted as whole persons, and allowed an equal vote; females are allowed an equal vote; 18-20-year-olds are allowed an equal vote. The primary groups NOT allowed an equal vote are non-citizens, children, criminals, cretins, and... residents of the District of Columbia. For Shame, America! For Shame!
If citizens of the 50 United States actually read, understood, and believed in the noble principles embodied in their Declaration of Independence, they would allow denizens of the Nation's capital, Washington, DC, to participate equally in the life of the Nation, along with their countrymen in the other 50 states. "To secure these rights (among others, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among men, deriving their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." The Consent mentioned in this case is given by participating in the means we as a nation use to reach a national consensus: regular election of a national legislature to make the laws under which we all must live. Shamefully, over half-a-million members of the nation (a larger population than that of the state of Wyoming), residents of the nation's capital, are STILL persistently and deliberately excluded from this process. Though they are part and parcel, progeny and posterity of the same Founders who pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to secure these rights, the Tyranny of their Countrymen has so far precluded DC denizens' participation in the national legislature in any meaningful form. This is an American Sham(e). Washington, DC continues to be Governed Without Consent. This violation of fundamantal first principles results in degradation of governmental legitimacy.
Non-whites are now counted as whole persons, and allowed an equal vote; females are allowed an equal vote; 18-20-year-olds are allowed an equal vote. The primary groups NOT allowed an equal vote are non-citizens, children, criminals, cretins, and... residents of the District of Columbia. For Shame, America! For Shame!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Practically Aliens
1893 Frederick Douglass stated, "Regarding their political rights, residents of the nation's capital are not really citizens but practically aliens in their own country."
1893 Frederick Douglass stated, "Regarding their political rights, residents of the nation's capital are not really citizens but practically aliens in their own country."
Thursday, November 12, 2009
DC is Governed Without Consent.
I might point out that the bedrock principle on which this country (and democracy itself) is founded is Consent of the Governed.DC is Governed Without Consent.
As a DC denizen, I have to point out the following: The United States Congress is not really our Congress, since we have had neither voice nor vote in it for over 200 years; the United States Supreme Court (and other Federal courts) are not really our courts, since we have had no say in their operations, their officers, nor the laws they impose on us, for over 200 years; The United States Constitution is not really even our Constitution, since we have had no say in Amendments 12-27.
I’m neutral on the gun issue. If we weren’t outnumbered 600 to one, maybe guns would be useful in getting us out from under the tyranny (“benevolent” as some may see it) of our countrymen. As it is, I think we need more ballots, and less bullets.
Welcome to DC.
Where Government by Consent of the Governed has been passe for several centuries now (since 1801). Where Americans have consistently, persistently and insistently imposed their own peculiar brand of tyranny on their own fellow citizens for far longer than living memory.
"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." Jonathan Swift
Both the Declaratory Act of 1766 and the District Clause of the US Constitution (qv) are unwarranted attempts by a national legislature to arrogate to themselves Absolute Power "in all cases whatsoever" over an unrepresented minority of the national population, in an obvious and egregious violation of a fundamental first principle of participatory government, that it "deriv[es] just power from the consent of the Governed." This persistent, consistent, and insistent violation of fundamental first principles degrades the very legitimacy of the government.
Where Government by Consent of the Governed has been passe for several centuries now (since 1801). Where Americans have consistently, persistently and insistently imposed their own peculiar brand of tyranny on their own fellow citizens for far longer than living memory.
"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." Jonathan Swift
Both the Declaratory Act of 1766 and the District Clause of the US Constitution (qv) are unwarranted attempts by a national legislature to arrogate to themselves Absolute Power "in all cases whatsoever" over an unrepresented minority of the national population, in an obvious and egregious violation of a fundamental first principle of participatory government, that it "deriv[es] just power from the consent of the Governed." This persistent, consistent, and insistent violation of fundamental first principles degrades the very legitimacy of the government.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
What has been denied?
"All of this ink and time being spent on giving the residents of the District of Columbia a 'full voting representative' in the House of Representatives. What exactly have the residents of the District of Columbia been denied as a result of not having such a representative?"
Simple answer: They have been denied their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights as citizens of this nation to participate equally in this participatory form of government which all other citizens enjoy. They are Governed Without Consent. They seek Equality, Nothing More, and will settle for Equality, Nothing Less.
They are denied recognition and respect for their inalienable right (which cannot be sold, traded, or taken away, an arbitrary, anachronistic, and artificial provision of the Constitution notwithstanding) to Consent to the laws under which we all must live, to be heard in the national consensus which we develop via our national legislature.
Denying DC the opportunity to either grant or withold Consent over the laws under which we all must live (as exercised by all other citizens in the fifty states) leaves the power exerted by Congress over the District both illegitimate and tyrannical. Recall that our Constitution, as originally written, denied these same fundamental rights to blacks and women, too. We have corrected that over time as we strive for "a more perfect Union." The task is not yet complete.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Founder George Mason said,
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
James Madison said,
"The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the Bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to."
Our Constitution is a document written in an attempt to "form a more perfect Union". One of the basic, bedrock fundamental principles upon which participatory government such as democracy and its variations (such as a democratic republic) are based is "Consent of the Governed". Consent is determined by majority consensus, with special protections afforded to the rights of minorities. One of the most basic implications of this approach is that "the people" consist of ALL of the people. If a minority of the people are excluded from even participating in the process of decision making by the majority, that exclusion tends to erode the legitimacy of the entire system. Such is the situation of the long-suffering residents of the District of Columbia. Excluded from participation in the national decision making process nearly from the beginning of the Republic by the tyranny of the majority (those living in the fifty states), their exclusion (along with the now-corrected one-time exclusion of blacks, women, and young adults under the age of 21) has tended to erode the legitimacy of the rule of law, under self-evident, bedrock, fundamental democratic principles such as Consent of the Governed. Consent of the Governed has not been afforded denizens of the District since 1801. The current Constitution is hardly even their Constitution today, since they have not been afforded an opportunity to participate in decision making that resulted in Amendments 12 through 27 (since 1801). The Courts, likewise, are hardly even their courts, since they have not had representatives with an opportunity to participate in decisions (advise and consent) regarding their staffing and operation, since 1801. Finally, the Congress is hardly even their Congress, since they have had no vote, and precious little voice, in either chamber, since 1801. The denizens of DC, as part of the original thirteen colonies, are unrebuttably the same posterity, the same progeny, as those currently residing in the fifty states, for whom, as an indivisible Nation, the Founders pledged their "Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor" to secure Liberty. Of that there can be no argument. Other territories (Puerto Rico, Pacific Islands, etc.) have a more tenuous claim on that position.
The Declaratory Act of 1766 was an attempt by the British nation to arrogate to itself an Absolute Power over an unrepresented minority "in all cases whatsoever". Similarly, the District Clause attempts to arrogate to the American nation Absolute Power over an unrepresented minority "in all cases whatsoever". Both cases are highly rebuttable, since both seek Absolute Power by the majority (and we know what Absolute Power does) over an unrepresented minority. The bedrock principle of "Consent of the Governed" is violated by such unwarranted assertions.
"VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good."
Virginia Declaration of Rights,
June, 1776
The consistent, insistent, and persistent violation of this fundamental, bedrock, first-principle of modern participatory government undermines and erodes the very legitimacy of the rule of government over those excluded from participation in our representative, democratic, republican system of government. As a citizen of this nation, I urge my fellow countrymen to address this deficiency in our Constitution, with the goal of forming a More Perfect Union.
Friday, July 17, 2009
DC Lament
My people, you are.
Not only rude,
but deliberately rude.
Not only clueless,
but deliberately clueless.
In our pain
at your exclusion of us,
you mock us.
Showing all the compassion,
and integrity,
and principle,
of little boys
who pull wings off of flies –
because they can!
And so we proclaim you,
as did our forefathers,
to their people,
before us…
Enemies in War,
In Peace, Friends.
My people, you are.
Not only rude,
but deliberately rude.
Not only clueless,
but deliberately clueless.
In our pain
at your exclusion of us,
you mock us.
Showing all the compassion,
and integrity,
and principle,
of little boys
who pull wings off of flies –
because they can!
And so we proclaim you,
as did our forefathers,
to their people,
before us…
Enemies in War,
In Peace, Friends.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Words Have Meaning
For example:
"Governments...[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Those words meant something when the colonists spoke them to their British countrymen. They still mean something when DC denizens speak them today to their American countrymen. Compare the Declaratory Act of 1766 with the District Clause of 1789. Each asserted the unwarranted absolute authority (in eerily similar language, i.e., "in all cases whatsoever") of the national legislature over an un-represented minority of the national population.
Legitimate power depends on the consent of the governed. The opportunity to grant or withhold such consent (via regular free and fair elections) has been denied residents of the District for over 200 years. That omission of any opportunity to grant or withold consent, of any opportunity to be counted when consensus is sought, undermines the justice and even the very legitimacy of the Congress, the Courts and the Constitution itself in exercising power over the District.
Voting in the affairs of one’s native country is an inalienable right. “Inalienable” means something like innate, or inherent or intrinsic. One cannot sell it or give it away, and no one can take it away.
So it really is irrelevant whether someone would like to trade voting rights for the absence of taxation: it can't be done.
Whether taxed or not, DC denizens HAVE an inalienable right to vote. It is innate, inherent, intrinsic to their unarguable identity: citizens of the nation, part of the posterity of the original colonists.
It is the OTHER citizens of the nation who must at some point come to respect and recognize that inherent right of their fellow citizens in DC, stemming from their equal membership in the nation.
For example:
"Governments...[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Those words meant something when the colonists spoke them to their British countrymen. They still mean something when DC denizens speak them today to their American countrymen. Compare the Declaratory Act of 1766 with the District Clause of 1789. Each asserted the unwarranted absolute authority (in eerily similar language, i.e., "in all cases whatsoever") of the national legislature over an un-represented minority of the national population.
Legitimate power depends on the consent of the governed. The opportunity to grant or withhold such consent (via regular free and fair elections) has been denied residents of the District for over 200 years. That omission of any opportunity to grant or withold consent, of any opportunity to be counted when consensus is sought, undermines the justice and even the very legitimacy of the Congress, the Courts and the Constitution itself in exercising power over the District.
Voting in the affairs of one’s native country is an inalienable right. “Inalienable” means something like innate, or inherent or intrinsic. One cannot sell it or give it away, and no one can take it away.
So it really is irrelevant whether someone would like to trade voting rights for the absence of taxation: it can't be done.
Whether taxed or not, DC denizens HAVE an inalienable right to vote. It is innate, inherent, intrinsic to their unarguable identity: citizens of the nation, part of the posterity of the original colonists.
It is the OTHER citizens of the nation who must at some point come to respect and recognize that inherent right of their fellow citizens in DC, stemming from their equal membership in the nation.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Denizenship (qv)
" It is not necessary, in my view of the matter, to discuss the
question how far a free man of color [meaning a black who was
not a slave] may be a Citizen, in the highest sense of the
word -- that is, one who enjoys in the fullest manner all the
JURA CIVITATIS under the Constitution of the United States...
Now free people of color are not ALIENS, they enjoy
universally (while there has been no express statutable
provision to the contrary) the rights of Denizens... How far
a political STATUS may be acquired is a different question,
but his civil STATUS is that of a complete Denizenship."
- Hugh S. Legare, Attorney General of the United States, in
["Pre-Emption Rights of Colored Persons"], 4 OPINIONS OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL 147, at 147 (March, 1843).
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, April 28, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
We know the way -- we only need the will. (emphasis added)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4555422
"I believe that a civil rights program, as we must practice it today, involves not so much the protection of the people against the government, but the protection of the people by the government. And for this reason we must make the federal government a friendly, vigilant defender of the rights and equalities of all Americans; and that every man should be free to live his life as he wishes. He should be limited only by his responsibility to his fellow man."
"I believe that we should remove the last barriers which stand between millions of our people and their birthright. There can be no justifiable reason for discrimination because of ancestry, or religion, or race, or color." [or ZIP CODE?]
"I believe that to inspire the people of the world whose freedom is in jeopardy, and to restore hope to those who have already lost their civil liberties, we must correct the remaining imperfections in our own democracy."
"We know the way -- we only need the will."
Who said this? See below....http://www.npr.org/templates
Thursday, April 14, 2005
But it's a very good thing, I'm sure of it.
Quote: "Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a slave himself" -- Abraham Lincoln
Nor do we hear of any offers by Americans outside of DC to permanently relinquish their Congressman and Senators; neither do we hear any offers to "lend" the representation of a Congressman or Senator entirely to the interests of the unrepresented denizens of DC for an extended period.
But it MUST be a good thing for DC to go unrepresented, though, because it says so in the Constitution, right? So why examine the idea critically by weighing the pros and cons, or by examining the motivations of those who created the situation, or by considering the moral consequences of egregiously violating the very "first principles" upon which the nation is founded ?
Quote: "Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a slave himself" -- Abraham Lincoln
Nor do we hear of any offers by Americans outside of DC to permanently relinquish their Congressman and Senators; neither do we hear any offers to "lend" the representation of a Congressman or Senator entirely to the interests of the unrepresented denizens of DC for an extended period.
But it MUST be a good thing for DC to go unrepresented, though, because it says so in the Constitution, right? So why examine the idea critically by weighing the pros and cons, or by examining the motivations of those who created the situation, or by considering the moral consequences of egregiously violating the very "first principles" upon which the nation is founded ?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Denizens of the District
Equal justice under law is the motto inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court.
Word games? Equal justice under law. Does that mean the GOAL is equal justice, provided by and resulting from a system of law? OR,instead, (as more often seems the case in a legal system preoccupied by complying with every legal technicality rather than delivering justice), does it imply that the objective of rendering equal justice is only an occasional secondary outcome, “under" (that is, subordinate to) the primary goal of meeting every possible technicality of the law? And then, of course, calling the result, by definition, “equal justice?” The answer depends on what “under” means: does it mean “resulting from” or “subordinate to”?
As the Founding Fathers noted, in a legal system truly dedicated to equal justice under (“resulting from”) law, careful consideration of the “first principles” on which the system was founded ought to trump laws, and even constitutional provisions. These first principles include, among others, such concepts as “all men are created equal” and “just power derives from the consent of the governed”. Under such a system, when the “justices” noted discrepancies between provisions of the laws and the fundamental desired outcome, equal justice, it would be their right, it would be their duty, to point out such discrepancies, and to promote their correction by ordering a modification of the system of laws that led to the deficiency. And it would be equally the duty and right of those governmental representatives entrusted with making, executing, and enforcing the laws (that is, the legislative and executive branches) to then propose, implement, execute and enforce such changes to the laws as will most surely result in the desired outcome – equal justice.
Failing that, it is the right and the duty of the People themselves to make such changes in the system, as to them shall seem most likely to effect the primary goal – equal justice.
Slave, or indentured Servant?
Indentured servants are bound to do their masters’ bidding “in all cases whatsoever,”
during the term of their servitude. So are slaves.
A primary difference between a slave and an indentured servant is that the term of servitude of an indentured servant is fixed and finite, whereas a slave’s term of servitude is indefinite and, in effect, infinite, until and unless his master chooses to set him free.
So, consider now the more than half-a million denizens of DC. Bound by the overwhelming might of their masters and countrymen, as embodied in the nation’s Constitution, they are to be ruled indefinitely, “in all cases whatsoever;” to be forced forever to do their countrymen’s bidding, without any real say whatsoever of their own, in either national or local affairs. Should they be considered indentured servants, or slaves? Clearly, one thing they are not is a free people. They cannot be free until set free (if ever) by the “noblesse oblige” (q.v.) of their masters and countrymen, the American people.
This, we call “democracy.” Surely the Founding Fathers would agree.
Indentured servants are bound to do their masters’ bidding “in all cases whatsoever,”
during the term of their servitude. So are slaves.
A primary difference between a slave and an indentured servant is that the term of servitude of an indentured servant is fixed and finite, whereas a slave’s term of servitude is indefinite and, in effect, infinite, until and unless his master chooses to set him free.
So, consider now the more than half-a million denizens of DC. Bound by the overwhelming might of their masters and countrymen, as embodied in the nation’s Constitution, they are to be ruled indefinitely, “in all cases whatsoever;” to be forced forever to do their countrymen’s bidding, without any real say whatsoever of their own, in either national or local affairs. Should they be considered indentured servants, or slaves? Clearly, one thing they are not is a free people. They cannot be free until set free (if ever) by the “noblesse oblige” (q.v.) of their masters and countrymen, the American people.
This, we call “democracy.” Surely the Founding Fathers would agree.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Proposition
All citizens in good standing of a democracy ought to be permitted to exercise their inherent right to vote, ought to be conceded their inalienable right to equal representation at the national level, and ought to be allowed to manage their own affairs via locally elected government.
Corollary
Elected officials in a democracy who do not support the above proposition are by definition unfit for elective office.
All citizens in good standing of a democracy ought to be permitted to exercise their inherent right to vote, ought to be conceded their inalienable right to equal representation at the national level, and ought to be allowed to manage their own affairs via locally elected government.
Corollary
Elected officials in a democracy who do not support the above proposition are by definition unfit for elective office.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Plowing
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others."
Frederick Douglass, 1857
Source: Douglass, Frederick. [1857] (1985). "The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies." Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857; collected in pamphlet by author. In The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Volume 3: 1855-63. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 204.
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others."
Frederick Douglass, 1857
Source: Douglass, Frederick. [1857] (1985). "The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies." Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857; collected in pamphlet by author. In The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Volume 3: 1855-63. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 204.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Equal Justice 'Under'
(ie, subordinate to?) Law"?
Minor v. Happersett
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law which ordained "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Minor, a woman, alleged that the refusal of Happersett, a registrar for the State of Missouri, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision
The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the Missouri voting legislation saying that the proscription of male citizen only was not an infringement of Minor's civil rights.
The Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the lower court's ruling on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. Since the United States Constitution did not provide suffrage for women, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer that right. The court's decision had nothing to do with whether women were considered persons or not under the Fourteenth Amendment but rested solely on the lack of provisions within the Constitution for women's suffrage.
(ie, subordinate to?) Law"?
Minor v. Happersett
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law which ordained "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Minor, a woman, alleged that the refusal of Happersett, a registrar for the State of Missouri, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision
The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the Missouri voting legislation saying that the proscription of male citizen only was not an infringement of Minor's civil rights.
The Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the lower court's ruling on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. Since the United States Constitution did not provide suffrage for women, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer that right. The court's decision had nothing to do with whether women were considered persons or not under the Fourteenth Amendment but rested solely on the lack of provisions within the Constitution for women's suffrage.
If it's true for women, ....?
"That nervous suffragist who wrote to ask if Mrs. Julia Ward Howe had been separated from her husband is a type of a large class of good people, who might be a little better. What they need to tone up their nerves and strengthen the weak knees . . . is a good dose of pure unadultered principle. They call themselves suffragists; but, with every breath of adverse opinion, their faith wavers. . . . All they need is thorough conviction of the right and the justice, not the expediency of woman suffrage. . . ."
"Suppose you try the methods of the mental science people in this matter? Go into a quiet room, sit down, close your eyes, and repeat to yourself: “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” Say it over and over till the idea is fully assimilated. Then, when some one tells you that a woman out in Colorado sold her vote for a piece of chewing gum, or that some other woman does not darn her husband’s stocking, or that Mary A. Livermore never made a loaf of bread in her life, just shut your eyes, ask yourself “What connection is there between this eternal truth and that petty bit of gossip?” If you have half as much sense as you ought to have, you will be able to answer yourself, “None whatever.”"
"If every woman suffragist in the land were divorced from her husband, still “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” and woman suffrage is right. If every woman suffragist were a poor housekeeper and a neglectful mother, still “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” and woman suffrage is right. If all womanly loveliness were embodied in the remonstrants and all womanly unloveliness in the woman suffragist, still “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” and woman suffrage is right. The eternal principles of truth and justice are to be our guides and not the fleeting circumstances that seem to confute these principles. . . ."
--Lida Calvert Obenchain
Source: The Woman’s Journal (February 29, 1896)
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Imagine . . .
Just imagine…
that both your state and your local community were completely controlled by outsiders,
from far away….
that any decision your state and local elected leaders made could be vetoed by those same outsiders, from far away…
that your state and local elected leaders couldn’t even spend your own local tax money without those same outsiders’ permission…
that you had no Senators to represent your interests…
that your delegate to congress, alone among the 435 others, was not allowed to vote…
that when decisions were made about national affairs, you, your state, and your community had no voice, and no vote…
that your own state and local leaders were even forbidden, by those same outsiders from far away, from spending your own local money to propose a change to this situation…
and, that those same outsiders from far away could even ABOLISH your own state and local elected leadership, and run things themselves, whenever they chose, without your consent…
Congratulations!
You’ve just imagined how the over half a million ordinary Americans who are day to day residents of Washington DC are forced to live!
But is this really how a democracy should work…?
Should Congress (or anyone else) have the power to rule “in all cases whatsoever” over “free” American citizens, when those “free” Americans have no say whatsoever?
Does “just” power really derive from “the consent of the governed”?
Can you really be called “free” if someone rules over you “in all cases whatsoever”, and you have no say whatsoever?
If someone rules over you “in all cases whatsoever,” isn’t that really called… “slavery”?
Sunday, July 11, 2004
We hold some truths to be self-evident,
We hold some rights to be inalienable, inherent, intrinsic, innate ...
immutable.
One such truth is this:
Just Power over a Free People is derived from the Consent of the Governed.
Power not so derived is inherently unjust.
People not so governed are intrinsically un-free.
The right of the free citizens of a democracy
to grant or deny their consent
to the laws under which they must live
is a right, and a power,
that is inalienably, inherently, intrinsically
innately their own.
A free people cannot abdicate their responsibility,
cannot delegate their consent to others,
cannot allow themselves to be controlled
“in all cases whatsoever,” and still remain free.
As our forefathers warned their British brethren,
any attempt to exercise such power,
or to allow it to be exercised,
without their active input,
without their continuing and explicit consent,
constitutes dependence, subjugation, and yes, slavery.
To govern a people in such a manner means that,
inherently, intrinsically,
that people is not free.
The right of a free people
to consent to the power that governs them
cannot be given away by their forbears,
nor can it be assumed away by their fellow citizens.
In that right, in that power of consent, granted or withheld,
is the essence of their freedom.
No more than race, gender, or age, or other inherent qualities,
neither can the location or the zip code of citizens’ dwellings
be a legitimate delimiter or qualifier
of those citizens’ innate rights to grant or deny consent
to the laws under which they must live.
Even though un-exercised and denied,
unrecognized and disrespected,
yet the inherent right to grant or withhold consent
is the only means available
to justify and legitimize power over a free people.
Just power over a free people flows only from the people themselves,
and is justified by the people’s active, continuing consent, freely given.
Powers not granted to those governing
by the consent of those governed
are reserved to the people.
Power not consented to by a free people lacks legitimacy.
When the right to grant or deny that consent is suppressed,
when power is exercised in the absence of such consent,
to the extent that such power is imposed,
that power is inherently unjust and illegitimate.
Nothing can be said or done by the various parties to change that fact.
No contracts, no clauses, no codicils, no covenants, no compromises, no compacts, no congresses, no constitutions, even, that incorporate such provisions as
“exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over a community of people,
while denying those same people representation,
thus denying them even the opportunity
to either grant or withhold their consent . . .
none of these can be a legitimate means
for the exercise of power over a free people.
We hold that this Truth is Self-evident because of the following:
A people governed in such a manner, an otherwise intrinsically free people,
governed by a legislative body in which they have no representation,
which legislative body nevertheless asserts over them
“exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever”,
imposing laws to which the people have not only not granted consent,
but not even been given the opportunity to grant such consent . . .
A people governed in such a manner are inherently un-free.
We hold some rights to be inalienable, inherent, intrinsic, innate ...
immutable.
One such truth is this:
Just Power over a Free People is derived from the Consent of the Governed.
Power not so derived is inherently unjust.
People not so governed are intrinsically un-free.
The right of the free citizens of a democracy
to grant or deny their consent
to the laws under which they must live
is a right, and a power,
that is inalienably, inherently, intrinsically
innately their own.
A free people cannot abdicate their responsibility,
cannot delegate their consent to others,
cannot allow themselves to be controlled
“in all cases whatsoever,” and still remain free.
As our forefathers warned their British brethren,
any attempt to exercise such power,
or to allow it to be exercised,
without their active input,
without their continuing and explicit consent,
constitutes dependence, subjugation, and yes, slavery.
To govern a people in such a manner means that,
inherently, intrinsically,
that people is not free.
The right of a free people
to consent to the power that governs them
cannot be given away by their forbears,
nor can it be assumed away by their fellow citizens.
In that right, in that power of consent, granted or withheld,
is the essence of their freedom.
No more than race, gender, or age, or other inherent qualities,
neither can the location or the zip code of citizens’ dwellings
be a legitimate delimiter or qualifier
of those citizens’ innate rights to grant or deny consent
to the laws under which they must live.
Even though un-exercised and denied,
unrecognized and disrespected,
yet the inherent right to grant or withhold consent
is the only means available
to justify and legitimize power over a free people.
Just power over a free people flows only from the people themselves,
and is justified by the people’s active, continuing consent, freely given.
Powers not granted to those governing
by the consent of those governed
are reserved to the people.
Power not consented to by a free people lacks legitimacy.
When the right to grant or deny that consent is suppressed,
when power is exercised in the absence of such consent,
to the extent that such power is imposed,
that power is inherently unjust and illegitimate.
Nothing can be said or done by the various parties to change that fact.
No contracts, no clauses, no codicils, no covenants, no compromises, no compacts, no congresses, no constitutions, even, that incorporate such provisions as
“exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over a community of people,
while denying those same people representation,
thus denying them even the opportunity
to either grant or withhold their consent . . .
none of these can be a legitimate means
for the exercise of power over a free people.
We hold that this Truth is Self-evident because of the following:
A people governed in such a manner, an otherwise intrinsically free people,
governed by a legislative body in which they have no representation,
which legislative body nevertheless asserts over them
“exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever”,
imposing laws to which the people have not only not granted consent,
but not even been given the opportunity to grant such consent . . .
A people governed in such a manner are inherently un-free.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Decline Cooperation...
Re: Blood Donations Desperately Needed
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=217614&nid=25
I was born and raised in Wisconsin, moved to DC at age 24. I am a law-abiding contributing citizen, have given MANY pints of blood over the years, I pay my taxes, and have spent a career as a public servant. And how am I treated in return? -- like a felon, I have had my voting rights suspended for the past 30 years.
We have "progressed" in this "democracy", from counting non-whites as 3/5ths of a person to actually letting them vote; we have overcome generations of tradition by letting the female gender have an equal say in national and local affairs; we have extended the franchise to 18-21 year-olds. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., but it is still legal (and embedded in the Constitution to boot ?!?) to discriminate against residents of the 200 _ _ ZIP CODE??.
In the Declaratory Act of 1766 the British Parliament asserted absolute power "in all cases whatsover" over the unrepresented 13 colonies. They rebelled. In the Constitution (the "District Clause"), Congress asserts the same power over the unrepresented citizens of the District. As American Patriot Thomas Paine said, "...if this be not slavery, there is no such thing as slavery upon the earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power belongs only to God."
Disenfranchised Citizenry? Decline Cooperation! In other words, you want my blood, give me my (inalienable, inherent, intrinsic) VOTE!!!
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=217614&nid=25
I was born and raised in Wisconsin, moved to DC at age 24. I am a law-abiding contributing citizen, have given MANY pints of blood over the years, I pay my taxes, and have spent a career as a public servant. And how am I treated in return? -- like a felon, I have had my voting rights suspended for the past 30 years.
We have "progressed" in this "democracy", from counting non-whites as 3/5ths of a person to actually letting them vote; we have overcome generations of tradition by letting the female gender have an equal say in national and local affairs; we have extended the franchise to 18-21 year-olds. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., but it is still legal (and embedded in the Constitution to boot ?!?) to discriminate against residents of the 200 _ _ ZIP CODE??.
In the Declaratory Act of 1766 the British Parliament asserted absolute power "in all cases whatsover" over the unrepresented 13 colonies. They rebelled. In the Constitution (the "District Clause"), Congress asserts the same power over the unrepresented citizens of the District. As American Patriot Thomas Paine said, "...if this be not slavery, there is no such thing as slavery upon the earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power belongs only to God."
Disenfranchised Citizenry? Decline Cooperation! In other words, you want my blood, give me my (inalienable, inherent, intrinsic) VOTE!!!
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Universal Suffrage - Sovereignty of the People
"When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the farther electoral rights are extended, the more is felt the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength. The ambition of those who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportion to the great number of those who are above it. The exception at last becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be made short of universal suffrage."
Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville, 1835
Friday, June 25, 2004
Nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice...
"majestic" and "plenary"... Words used by Judge Kenneth Starr in his testimony of June 23, 2004 before the House Committee on Government Reform, supporting the view that the Constitution permits Congress to provide for DC voting representation legislatively.
Given that the District Clause closely resembled the Declaratory Act, and therefore also usurps the inalienable (inherent, intrinsic) right of the people to grant or withold consent of their government through representatives that they select, we might choose slightly different words to describe the situation, such as, maybe,
for MAJESTIC--
Monarchic??
Undemocratic??
Totalitarian??
Despotic??
Tyrannical??
Autocratic...??
Dictatorial??
Authoritarian??
And for PLENARY--
Comprehensive??
Sweeping??
Overweening??
Overreaching??
Indiscriminate??
Arrogant??
Unjustified??
Overbearing??
"Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice."
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, Number One, December 23, 1776 (qv)
Given that the District Clause closely resembled the Declaratory Act, and therefore also usurps the inalienable (inherent, intrinsic) right of the people to grant or withold consent of their government through representatives that they select, we might choose slightly different words to describe the situation, such as, maybe,
for MAJESTIC--
Monarchic??
Undemocratic??
Totalitarian??
Despotic??
Tyrannical??
Autocratic...??
Dictatorial??
Authoritarian??
And for PLENARY--
Comprehensive??
Sweeping??
Overweening??
Overreaching??
Indiscriminate??
Arrogant??
Unjustified??
Overbearing??
"Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice."
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, Number One, December 23, 1776 (qv)
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Do the right thing...
"It's the action, not the fruit of the action
that's important. You have to do the right thing.
It may not be in your power, may not be in your time,
that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean
you stop doing the right thing. You may never know
what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no results."
- Gandhi
that's important. You have to do the right thing.
It may not be in your power, may not be in your time,
that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean
you stop doing the right thing. You may never know
what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no results."
- Gandhi
Friday, June 11, 2004
Resistance
"Extreme cases of oppression justify… a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government…"
James Madison, Letter to N. P. Trist, December, 1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 206)
What, then, would be the type of resistance justified by an assertion by the U.S. Congress, under the U. S. Constitution, of the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over a community such as Washington, D.C.? The "original right of resistance"
was exercised, under very similar conditions, by the communities of the 13 original colonies when faced with similar assertions by the British Parliament in the Declaratory Act of March, 1766 (q.v.).
James Madison, Letter to N. P. Trist, December, 1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 206)
What, then, would be the type of resistance justified by an assertion by the U.S. Congress, under the U. S. Constitution, of the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over a community such as Washington, D.C.? The "original right of resistance"
was exercised, under very similar conditions, by the communities of the 13 original colonies when faced with similar assertions by the British Parliament in the Declaratory Act of March, 1766 (q.v.).
Equal laws protecting equal rights...?
Was it because of fears that the denizens of Washington D.C. might prove disloyal, that they have, since 1801, been deprived of their rights to national representation and local autonomy?
Consider what a Founding Father said in that regard:
"Equal laws protecting equal rights — the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country."
James Madison, letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820
Now consider what might be the potential, eventual result of the LACK of equality under the laws, and the DENIAL of equal rights...
Consider what a Founding Father said in that regard:
"Equal laws protecting equal rights — the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country."
James Madison, letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820
Now consider what might be the potential, eventual result of the LACK of equality under the laws, and the DENIAL of equal rights...
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Hidden Cancer
"Bad principles in a Govt. tho slow are sure in their
operation and will gradually destroy it."
Alexander Hamilton, as reported by Jas. Madison
June
18, 1787
Patriot Dreams
Beautiful, Spacious,
Alabaster,
The City Gleams…
Patriot
Dreams!
Declaring Themselves
Invested with Power
To Legislate for us…
In all Cases
Whatsoever!
If being Bound
In that Manner
Is not Slavery…?
Impious
Expression!
Just power Derives
From the Consent
Of the Governed…
God Mend
Thine Every Flaw!
Confirm Thy Soul
In Self-control
Thy Liberty in Law…
*****
Washington, DC, subject of this verse, is subject to
external control "in all cases whatsoever", as were the
original thirteen colonies...until they revolted.
*****
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Consent of the Governed
March 2004
Subject: Needed Constitutional Revision
May I take the liberty of suggesting a provision of the U. S. Constitution which is grievously in need of revision?
This country was founded on certain basic principles, one of them being that:
"governments are instituted among men - - deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (my emphasis).
In passing the Declaratory Act in 1766, the British Parliament asserted "full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever." (my emphasis).
This assertion, of course, contravened the basic first principle of democracy, that power resides in the people, since the colonies were not even represented in the British Parliament. Ten years later, the colonists revolted against such an unwarranted assertion of power. American patriot Thomas Paine said it well (The American Crisis, Number One, December 1776):
“…Britain , with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
Unfortunately, ten years later, in their rush to design a new government, the Founding Fathers of the new nation failed to note, in writing the U.S. Constitution, that they were subjecting the denizens of the new nation’s capital to the same sort of colonial status they had recently overthrown, when they similarly asserted Congress’ overweening right (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17, the so-called "District Clause") to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, “in all cases whatsoever”, over the (un-represented) residents of Washington, DC.
Where were the guiding “first principles” such as “just power derives from the consent of the governed” when this provision was written? Had they forgotten so soon the rallying cry of the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny”?
The truth is that they are not the only ones who have overlooked the God-given rights of denizens of the nation’s capital. Over the years, through more than 200 years now, that unjust situation has persisted. Some Americans have occasionally given the matter lip-service, but nothing substantial has yet been done to right this grievous injustice.
In the current situation, the district known as Washington DC is not truly a part of the nation formed by the 50 so-named United States. Rather, the District, and the more than half a million souls inhabiting it (as large as many Congressional Districts and more populous than the State of Wyoming), is in effect a colony of the fifty united states, a place separate and unequal, un-represented at the national table, voice-less in national debates, and vote-less in national decisions.
This situation creates in DC a colonial mentality, a mentality that saps the native
energy of the local population, making them dependent on others for their subsistence, having no control over their lives. As de Tocqueville might have said, "it does not [so much] tyrannize, [as] it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, ..."
“Nor have We [DC denizens] been wanting in attention to our [American] 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.”
OR, the 50 states could simply, in fairness, justice, and equity, permit the denizens (we can't really call them citizens, not until they are treated as such) of the District to exercise their God-given rights to both representation at the national table, and local self-rule.
I suggest an amendment to clarify the Constitution, giving Americans living in the District equal representation in the House and Senate, and full local self-rule. National concerns about control over the seat of government could be assuaged by making any local self-rule provisions in the District subject to over-ride, by a vote of, shall we say, two-thirds of both houses (it currently requires only a simple majority for the Congress to “muck up” local DC affairs). This approach would reasonably protect the "consent of the governed" principle, while allowing the American nation as a whole to over-ride local DC decisions, but only when clearly necessary for the compelling national interest.
What say you?
Subject: Needed Constitutional Revision
May I take the liberty of suggesting a provision of the U. S. Constitution which is grievously in need of revision?
This country was founded on certain basic principles, one of them being that:
"governments are instituted among men - - deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (my emphasis).
In passing the Declaratory Act in 1766, the British Parliament asserted "full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever." (my emphasis).
This assertion, of course, contravened the basic first principle of democracy, that power resides in the people, since the colonies were not even represented in the British Parliament. Ten years later, the colonists revolted against such an unwarranted assertion of power. American patriot Thomas Paine said it well (The American Crisis, Number One, December 1776):
“…Britain , with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
Unfortunately, ten years later, in their rush to design a new government, the Founding Fathers of the new nation failed to note, in writing the U.S. Constitution, that they were subjecting the denizens of the new nation’s capital to the same sort of colonial status they had recently overthrown, when they similarly asserted Congress’ overweening right (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17, the so-called "District Clause") to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, “in all cases whatsoever”, over the (un-represented) residents of Washington, DC.
Where were the guiding “first principles” such as “just power derives from the consent of the governed” when this provision was written? Had they forgotten so soon the rallying cry of the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny”?
The truth is that they are not the only ones who have overlooked the God-given rights of denizens of the nation’s capital. Over the years, through more than 200 years now, that unjust situation has persisted. Some Americans have occasionally given the matter lip-service, but nothing substantial has yet been done to right this grievous injustice.
In the current situation, the district known as Washington DC is not truly a part of the nation formed by the 50 so-named United States. Rather, the District, and the more than half a million souls inhabiting it (as large as many Congressional Districts and more populous than the State of Wyoming), is in effect a colony of the fifty united states, a place separate and unequal, un-represented at the national table, voice-less in national debates, and vote-less in national decisions.
This situation creates in DC a colonial mentality, a mentality that saps the native
energy of the local population, making them dependent on others for their subsistence, having no control over their lives. As de Tocqueville might have said, "it does not [so much] tyrannize, [as] it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, ..."
“Nor have We [DC denizens] been wanting in attention to our [American] 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.”
OR, the 50 states could simply, in fairness, justice, and equity, permit the denizens (we can't really call them citizens, not until they are treated as such) of the District to exercise their God-given rights to both representation at the national table, and local self-rule.
I suggest an amendment to clarify the Constitution, giving Americans living in the District equal representation in the House and Senate, and full local self-rule. National concerns about control over the seat of government could be assuaged by making any local self-rule provisions in the District subject to over-ride, by a vote of, shall we say, two-thirds of both houses (it currently requires only a simple majority for the Congress to “muck up” local DC affairs). This approach would reasonably protect the "consent of the governed" principle, while allowing the American nation as a whole to over-ride local DC decisions, but only when clearly necessary for the compelling national interest.
What say you?
- - - A more perfect union…???
1770 All men are created equal – no kings, no aristocracy…
- - - 1787 ........Oh, yeah, and non-whites are equal…to three-fifths of whites.
........ Yeah, and man means MAN…GROWN man!
......... And the people who live in that new capital district don’t get no say whatsoever.
1820 OK, non-white men are EQUAL! But we didn’t say they could VOTE!
1870 ALL RIGHT! Non-white men can VOTE, then! But nobody said WOMEN could!
1920 All RIGHT, ALREADY! Women can VOTE! But MEN means GROWN men. Over 21!
1970 Sheesh! A man’s a man at 18, then! Girls, too! But not those weirdos who live in DC!
2020 …????...
1770 All men are created equal – no kings, no aristocracy…
- - - 1787 ........Oh, yeah, and non-whites are equal…to three-fifths of whites.
........ Yeah, and man means MAN…GROWN man!
......... And the people who live in that new capital district don’t get no say whatsoever.
1820 OK, non-white men are EQUAL! But we didn’t say they could VOTE!
1870 ALL RIGHT! Non-white men can VOTE, then! But nobody said WOMEN could!
1920 All RIGHT, ALREADY! Women can VOTE! But MEN means GROWN men. Over 21!
1970 Sheesh! A man’s a man at 18, then! Girls, too! But not those weirdos who live in DC!
2020 …????...
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation ... It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
Robert F. Kennedy
June 1966
Cape Town, South Africa
Robert F. Kennedy
June 1966
Cape Town, South Africa
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Virginia Declaration of Rights
Introduced by George Mason at the Virginia Convention in the Capitol in Williamsburg.
Unanimously adopted June 12, 1776
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention, which rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
1. THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the publick weal.
4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, to be hereditary.
5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.
7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgement of his peers.
9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.
11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.
12. That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments.
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Source: The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776. Williamsburg (1776), 100-103; Hening, William W. (ed) The Statutes at Large, IX, (1890-1923) 109-112.
Introduced by George Mason at the Virginia Convention in the Capitol in Williamsburg.
Unanimously adopted June 12, 1776
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention, which rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
1. THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the publick weal.
4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, to be hereditary.
5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.
7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgement of his peers.
9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.
11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.
12. That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments.
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Source: The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776. Williamsburg (1776), 100-103; Hening, William W. (ed) The Statutes at Large, IX, (1890-1923) 109-112.
How DC is Organized and Operated*
“...the [Congress] organizes the [District], but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the [Congress] alone....”
*The above quote is taken directly from a definition in the 1932 Italian Encyclopedia. entitled “Fascism”, (written by Benito Mussolini, and very slightly paraphrased here). Note: Where [Congress] appears in this text, Mussolini’s original version used “Fascist State”, and where [District] appears in this text, Mussolini’s original version used “nation”. Otherwise the phrasing is identical…. Food for thought?
“...the [Congress] organizes the [District], but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the [Congress] alone....”
*The above quote is taken directly from a definition in the 1932 Italian Encyclopedia. entitled “Fascism”, (written by Benito Mussolini, and very slightly paraphrased here). Note: Where [Congress] appears in this text, Mussolini’s original version used “Fascist State”, and where [District] appears in this text, Mussolini’s original version used “nation”. Otherwise the phrasing is identical…. Food for thought?
DC: the last colony…
“…[Congress], with an army to enforce [its] tyranny, has declared that [it] has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
Slightly paraphrased from “The American Crisis:
Number One”
by Thomas Paine
(1776 - 1783)
“…[Congress], with an army to enforce [its] tyranny, has declared that [it] has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
Slightly paraphrased from “The American Crisis:
Number One”
by Thomas Paine
(1776 - 1783)
We hold these truths to be self-evident …that all men are created equal … and …are endowed …with certain inalienable rights… (regardless of such individual characteristics as gender, skin color, hair color, eye color, age, religious beliefs, nationality, orientation, handedness ….OR the zip code of their residence…).
…to be strictly just, [the authority of government]
must have the sanction and consent of the governed.
It can have no pure right over my person and
property but what I concede to it.
ATTRIBUTION:
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
It was not because the three-penny tax on tea was so
exorbitant that our Revolutionary fathers fought and
died, but to establish the principle that such taxation
was unjust. It is the same with this woman’s
revolution; though every law were as just to woman
as to man, the principle that one class may usurp the
power to legislate for another is unjust, and all who
are now in the struggle from love of principle would
still work on until the establishment of the grand and
immutable truth, “All governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”
ATTRIBUTION:
Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)
must have the sanction and consent of the governed.
It can have no pure right over my person and
property but what I concede to it.
ATTRIBUTION:
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
It was not because the three-penny tax on tea was so
exorbitant that our Revolutionary fathers fought and
died, but to establish the principle that such taxation
was unjust. It is the same with this woman’s
revolution; though every law were as just to woman
as to man, the principle that one class may usurp the
power to legislate for another is unjust, and all who
are now in the struggle from love of principle would
still work on until the establishment of the grand and
immutable truth, “All governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”
ATTRIBUTION:
Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)
Friday, December 19, 2003
History demonstrates that military prowess (the sword) is rarely a long-term or an effective solution to many of the world's problems. And (thankfully!) most of us don't have access to the requisite weapons technology.
But the simple truth of the proverb "The pen is mightier than the sword" gives hope that the pen, when wielded by a thoughtful and sufficiently skilled craftsman, can educate and persuade through the power of the written word. In that way the pen can empower individuals to affect the course of human events, and so perhaps effect solutions to at least some of the world's problems, if only perhaps slowly and incrementally.
And so, from that optimistic outook, being further empowered by the recent development of technology to potentially publish those words world-wide on a nearly cost-free basis, The Sanguine Pen commences.
Although, unlike the sword, the sanguine pen is not deliberately sanguinary, at times the sanguine pen may figuratively prick and draw blood from the ignorant, the irrational, the bigoted. So be it. Such is the nature of persuasion.
But the simple truth of the proverb "The pen is mightier than the sword" gives hope that the pen, when wielded by a thoughtful and sufficiently skilled craftsman, can educate and persuade through the power of the written word. In that way the pen can empower individuals to affect the course of human events, and so perhaps effect solutions to at least some of the world's problems, if only perhaps slowly and incrementally.
And so, from that optimistic outook, being further empowered by the recent development of technology to potentially publish those words world-wide on a nearly cost-free basis, The Sanguine Pen commences.
Although, unlike the sword, the sanguine pen is not deliberately sanguinary, at times the sanguine pen may figuratively prick and draw blood from the ignorant, the irrational, the bigoted. So be it. Such is the nature of persuasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)