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.

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!!!

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

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)

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

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.).

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...

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.

*****

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?

- - - 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 …????...

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

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.

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?

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)

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)