Establishing citizenry is a problem having no clear solution that I am aware of. But, that does not mean we should not review it, study it, and make the best we can of it and fix all of its problems for Constitutionality.
The first principle I take is that citizenship must be established "ethically" (I purposely use this word in contrast to the "alternative word" in vogue of "legally", as it more accurately represents the needs of Commons Sense Constitutionality. To whit, it reflects the purposes of the Constitution and not the presently in vogue "created terms" having no Constitutional meaning such as "the rule of law", "due process (under the law", "equality before the law", "judicial review", "the militia (not the Militia please note)", "citizenship" and others of this ilk!
Ethically here means that the concept that each and every act organization and law of the US Constitution must be in full compliance with all of the US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Common Law of June 1776 and it's present meaning to "WE THE PEOPLE", and nothing else.
Any act, organization or law of government that is not in compliance with this I deem Non-Constitutional and therefore null and void. Doing otherwise seems to be the norm of our government. Their favorite practice is to act on only a portion, sometimes called "clausal" action, or to use re-definitions of "street English" words and their meanings.
In this vein, citizenship, one of our most important identifiers, coming from "born in the United States" can mean only "born while legally/ethically in the United States, it's territories or of its citizens" to determine citizenship. The quoted Constitutional phrase above if not so meant is an example of "clausal" government.
The establishment of citizenship is granted to no Federal component. Therefore it is a State's or persons right. Yet, it is being proposed to become a Fed power. This is Non-Constitutional, and I propose it be immediately countered by a States' convention to establish uniform citizenship means and methods. To energize such a convention, I propose that:
1. Every birthing agent, be made a notary public, who will notarize on a special birth certificate the data, footprint, witnesses, time, and place, and parentage of every birth. Five copies of the notary's signature will be a permanent part of State records.
2. The special birth certificate will be of the same forgery proof paper that we use for our paper currency, but will include a tamper proof seal and a digital signature for further certification. As technology progresses, new signature technologies will be added to the older certificate. It also may be updated with fingerprints, more recent photos, etc.
3. The certificate will be validated for accuracy, stored in State record repositories, and copies provided to parents and child, and provided with a tamper proof seal and digital signature. With the latter, it may be an option for the certificate to be held privately and not archived. As digital signature technology advances, new signatures will be overlaid onto older certificates.
4. The certificate will be the source of all ID "card", a passport, a draft registration number, a social security and/or tax ID numbers, and no other source document for citizenship shall be allowed. The sourcing audit trail will be a State's right.
5. Each birthed citizen shall be a certified citizen until he reaches an age of majority at which time he will take an oath of formal citizenship and receive a new citizenship document having the same standards as the above. it will then be a voter ID.
Without measures such as these, "Angel babies" will proliferate. Fed draft registration will not be needed, nor will SSA files.
Many of these are currently accepted, but are Non-Constitutional. We indeed make a balance between privacy and citizen certification. But we make it as WE THE PEOPLE, as best we are able, and not as presently ad hoc bureaucrocy antics.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A FLAT TAX
One of the main reasons to have a written enforced Constitution upon which to establish a people's governance, is to prevent or at least try to control those features of human nature that we know exist but do not wish to be allowed to get out of hand.
One of these is keeping sociopaths out of our governing bodies; something that can be tested for in public servants and candidates, e.g. the Revised Psychopath Check List, and "The Ice People", Psychology Today, Jan/Feb 2005 by Martha Stout. That it is not tested for is said to be an invasion of "privacy". It is also a guarantee that these types will be in decision making spots of influence, power, and money abuse areas.
Another is the prevention of so large a body of "laws" being allowed, that it is impossible for anyone to know them all, therefore for anyone to check their consistency within themselves and the first paragraph requirements of our present Constitution, nor to find "hidden special interest" laws that are not for the General Welfare. The two largest bodies of law we have now are the Tax Laws and the Immigration Laws, both being in the billions of words. And the words are themselves mysteriously crafted for mis-direction.
The immigration laws tie into special interests of political and economic themes. And there is the voter, citizenship, and general Identity problem contained within them that have very troublesome "side effects" that go beyond just immigration if not handled properly.
But the worst of all the human nature issues we wish to exclude from our governance concern money and reside within the obvious incomprehensibility of the tax laws. I know of only one way to stop this and that is any of the proposed "Flat Tax" proposals to replace our present tax law. It was first proposed by Milton Friedman, and remains a truly magnificent proposition. It is best learned by Google searches on "Flat Tax". I truly wish it for all of us. Until it or a cousin law comes into being, the presently "in vogue term" the rule of law is nothing but a non-Constitutionality we must avoid.
One of these is keeping sociopaths out of our governing bodies; something that can be tested for in public servants and candidates, e.g. the Revised Psychopath Check List, and "The Ice People", Psychology Today, Jan/Feb 2005 by Martha Stout. That it is not tested for is said to be an invasion of "privacy". It is also a guarantee that these types will be in decision making spots of influence, power, and money abuse areas.
Another is the prevention of so large a body of "laws" being allowed, that it is impossible for anyone to know them all, therefore for anyone to check their consistency within themselves and the first paragraph requirements of our present Constitution, nor to find "hidden special interest" laws that are not for the General Welfare. The two largest bodies of law we have now are the Tax Laws and the Immigration Laws, both being in the billions of words. And the words are themselves mysteriously crafted for mis-direction.
The immigration laws tie into special interests of political and economic themes. And there is the voter, citizenship, and general Identity problem contained within them that have very troublesome "side effects" that go beyond just immigration if not handled properly.
But the worst of all the human nature issues we wish to exclude from our governance concern money and reside within the obvious incomprehensibility of the tax laws. I know of only one way to stop this and that is any of the proposed "Flat Tax" proposals to replace our present tax law. It was first proposed by Milton Friedman, and remains a truly magnificent proposition. It is best learned by Google searches on "Flat Tax". I truly wish it for all of us. Until it or a cousin law comes into being, the presently "in vogue term" the rule of law is nothing but a non-Constitutionality we must avoid.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
SCIENCE SO WHAT?
From the past writings, we get that the Constitutions first paragraph and some of its internal writings are a "contract" for us citizens to set up some "agents" who are to provide us sets of deliverables, and that these agents can charge us for those services by a bunch of taxes of their own design.
Since the collected "Scientific Method" measures of 1) Observe, 2) Hypothesize and 3) Test, are the only means known for any or all of us to get the same answers about the workings of the world, including finding our mistakes in using the method, it follows that the processes for ensuring the deliverables must be derived from science. So far they are not!
So, our agents must fund and learn science and do the derivation or they are in default. And since they have allegedly delivered services for a cost, we should get an itemized receipt for those services, and a quarterly accounting statement of the net worth, assets, liabilities and fiscal soundness of our agents "structures".
The first quarterly statement should be very, very long showing their full compliance with the Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, by which they reached their present "policies". (As they use the word policy, it is an ad hoc, as I use it it is a statement of goals, with description of the "derived" path to said goals). And, as I know the "sciences are not yet complete, I'd better see in the list of goals a commitment to completing "science".
That we don't get these, is grounds for presenting our government a "request for redress of these our grievances". I do hereby present mine one behalf of all of us. You are invited to join with me in doing likewise for the common good and welfare.
All those favoring the "faith claiming" neo-cons versions of "policy"; just note, that they are the same old cons as always!
Commons Sense
Since the collected "Scientific Method" measures of 1) Observe, 2) Hypothesize and 3) Test, are the only means known for any or all of us to get the same answers about the workings of the world, including finding our mistakes in using the method, it follows that the processes for ensuring the deliverables must be derived from science. So far they are not!
So, our agents must fund and learn science and do the derivation or they are in default. And since they have allegedly delivered services for a cost, we should get an itemized receipt for those services, and a quarterly accounting statement of the net worth, assets, liabilities and fiscal soundness of our agents "structures".
The first quarterly statement should be very, very long showing their full compliance with the Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, by which they reached their present "policies". (As they use the word policy, it is an ad hoc, as I use it it is a statement of goals, with description of the "derived" path to said goals). And, as I know the "sciences are not yet complete, I'd better see in the list of goals a commitment to completing "science".
That we don't get these, is grounds for presenting our government a "request for redress of these our grievances". I do hereby present mine one behalf of all of us. You are invited to join with me in doing likewise for the common good and welfare.
All those favoring the "faith claiming" neo-cons versions of "policy"; just note, that they are the same old cons as always!
Commons Sense
Monday, April 28, 2008
SUPREME INDEPENDENCE?
Independence is a historical foundational principle as it is written in the Declaration of Independence and must be included as such in government. Yet, Independence is written only once in the United States Constitution and that's:
....of the Independence of the Republic of the United States of America....
in the last paragraph of the document, just before the signatures of the ratifiers. It is thus a requirement of the US and its government that shall not be denied
I have three problems with the treatment of our United States of America's Independence. They are that "maneuverers within the system" who use various artifices to "get what they want:
1. commonly rename things to avoid their agendas being discovered non-Constitutional,
2. use the names, but don't "let the rest of the world" know what they mean the word to mean, how they use it in that meaning and what the consequences of that use are, which seem often to be non-Constitutional and should not be allowed.
3. the Supreme Law of the Land as it is described in the body, then should exclude all laws, treaties, agreements, etc. that give up Independence of the United States of America;but, it does not, it defines it otherwise.
That makes many presently practiced "pseudo-agreements" of our presently acticing government void and non-Constitutional, and needs vigorous correction. It starts with all forms of "World Courts" and "World Governments" that give up this Independence in the words of their "charters". Such "groups" that appear to be attempting to encroach our US Independence now do include: The United Nations, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and others.
This is not to say that such organizations could not be created to perform many or most of the "good functions" that they do. It's just that right now they are putting at undue risk the Independence of the Republic, with charter documents that are non-Constitutional in giving up Independence of the United States of America, quite insidiously and unnecessarily to do so.
It is often said that only the original meaning of the words of the Constitution are valid. However, none of us know what that is. So the alternative is to use Jury-determined present "street English" meanings when interpretation is needed. Recall the Constitution does not give the Judiciary the right or power of Judicial review, and certainly not judges without juries
The gamesmanship allowed in the first two difficulties listed above, must not be allowed. Their disallowance is a power granted to none in government, so it resides again in juries.
....of the Independence of the Republic of the United States of America....
in the last paragraph of the document, just before the signatures of the ratifiers. It is thus a requirement of the US and its government that shall not be denied
I have three problems with the treatment of our United States of America's Independence. They are that "maneuverers within the system" who use various artifices to "get what they want:
1. commonly rename things to avoid their agendas being discovered non-Constitutional,
2. use the names, but don't "let the rest of the world" know what they mean the word to mean, how they use it in that meaning and what the consequences of that use are, which seem often to be non-Constitutional and should not be allowed.
3. the Supreme Law of the Land as it is described in the body, then should exclude all laws, treaties, agreements, etc. that give up Independence of the United States of America;but, it does not, it defines it otherwise.
That makes many presently practiced "pseudo-agreements" of our presently acticing government void and non-Constitutional, and needs vigorous correction. It starts with all forms of "World Courts" and "World Governments" that give up this Independence in the words of their "charters". Such "groups" that appear to be attempting to encroach our US Independence now do include: The United Nations, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and others.
This is not to say that such organizations could not be created to perform many or most of the "good functions" that they do. It's just that right now they are putting at undue risk the Independence of the Republic, with charter documents that are non-Constitutional in giving up Independence of the United States of America, quite insidiously and unnecessarily to do so.
It is often said that only the original meaning of the words of the Constitution are valid. However, none of us know what that is. So the alternative is to use Jury-determined present "street English" meanings when interpretation is needed. Recall the Constitution does not give the Judiciary the right or power of Judicial review, and certainly not judges without juries
The gamesmanship allowed in the first two difficulties listed above, must not be allowed. Their disallowance is a power granted to none in government, so it resides again in juries.
A REPUBLIC?
The United States Constitution has more questions in it than it does answers. And it has more "self-interested", than "patriotic" answerers to these questions, that is if they are brought to the light of the analytical patriotic mind and spirit.
Some of the ones that are most worrisome (I offer here free guidelines of mine) "should be" those things that are said too much, said too little, or said in ways that we have not looked into carefully enough. One said too little that is quite a big thing is "Republic". It appears in only one place:
In Article IV, Section4, para 1 (and I add 2 for fun) it says:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.
So far as I can tell if we ever were, the States are no longer a true Republic. But as Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said, "Those who would trade a little liberty, for a little safety, deserve neither", or words to that effect. It's very precient that the second paragraph promises protection for each of the"parts of the Republic" from invasion. I want it to read "protect the Republic and its Constitution from all invasions, both foreign and domestic." I guess we traded the Republic for the Dept. of Homeland Security, and foreign "wars by resolution", without the Constitutional "due process Congressional Declarations of War! So, we got what we let us be given, right? Let's give it back and get the original!
I want only a Republic, it's what I paid for: but, I don't have it! So Non-Constitutional is also Non-Republic! (Come on you word pundit type guys, say it another more modernly relevant extended way!) Seems to me there is a lot in this "few little words" business that strikes at the "principles" of the Republic of the United States of America
Another is the many ways that these sometimes "few little words" are written, such as defense, is in two or four or perhaps more ways as, (or my should be"s):
1. defence
2. Defence
3. common defence
4. common Defence
5. Common Defence
6. Common Commons Defence
The lawyer mind with its great concern for long sentences, multiple polysyllabic phrases, and number and positioning of commas, has rather arbitrarily changed all forms of "defence" into "defense" and noted nothing at all about a difference between Defense and defense and common Defense, et al. Mine makes the latter not only the street English "defense of us all", but also "Defense of al the Commons". Why are these things not brought out more fully? I know not; but, I know whence they will take us commonly. Me thinks I don't want to go any further that-a-way! And I doth not protest too much!
Another worrisome little word is Independence. Did we not begin with the Declaration of Indepdndence and its principle, and should they not be included in "Constitutionality? At present, it appears only once in the "writings on the Constitution's paper". (One problem is that the Constitution has no clear end delimiting its meat from commentary.) Thus Independence is "kindof" included into the "Constitution" by constitutional convention secretary Jackson who added the following note to the "Constitution":
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G°. Washington . . .
Some of the ones that are most worrisome (I offer here free guidelines of mine) "should be" those things that are said too much, said too little, or said in ways that we have not looked into carefully enough. One said too little that is quite a big thing is "Republic". It appears in only one place:
In Article IV, Section4, para 1 (and I add 2 for fun) it says:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.
So far as I can tell if we ever were, the States are no longer a true Republic. But as Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said, "Those who would trade a little liberty, for a little safety, deserve neither", or words to that effect. It's very precient that the second paragraph promises protection for each of the"parts of the Republic" from invasion. I want it to read "protect the Republic and its Constitution from all invasions, both foreign and domestic." I guess we traded the Republic for the Dept. of Homeland Security, and foreign "wars by resolution", without the Constitutional "due process Congressional Declarations of War! So, we got what we let us be given, right? Let's give it back and get the original!
I want only a Republic, it's what I paid for: but, I don't have it! So Non-Constitutional is also Non-Republic! (Come on you word pundit type guys, say it another more modernly relevant extended way!) Seems to me there is a lot in this "few little words" business that strikes at the "principles" of the Republic of the United States of America
Another is the many ways that these sometimes "few little words" are written, such as defense, is in two or four or perhaps more ways as, (or my should be"s):
1. defence
2. Defence
3. common defence
4. common Defence
5. Common Defence
6. Common Commons Defence
The lawyer mind with its great concern for long sentences, multiple polysyllabic phrases, and number and positioning of commas, has rather arbitrarily changed all forms of "defence" into "defense" and noted nothing at all about a difference between Defense and defense and common Defense, et al. Mine makes the latter not only the street English "defense of us all", but also "Defense of al the Commons". Why are these things not brought out more fully? I know not; but, I know whence they will take us commonly. Me thinks I don't want to go any further that-a-way! And I doth not protest too much!
Another worrisome little word is Independence. Did we not begin with the Declaration of Indepdndence and its principle, and should they not be included in "Constitutionality? At present, it appears only once in the "writings on the Constitution's paper". (One problem is that the Constitution has no clear end delimiting its meat from commentary.) Thus Independence is "kindof" included into the "Constitution" by constitutional convention secretary Jackson who added the following note to the "Constitution":
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G°. Washington . . .
Thursday, April 24, 2008
ON BELIEF
At our core of being and decision is a system of our own beliefs; and it’s important for us all to know some of thevarious types. (The following is a bit "tough going". But we need it for later posts!)
History is what historians tell us it is. Their stories are all interesting; but also quite different. So probably some are not too true. We can believe what we hear or read that people say; and we can believe what we perceive ourselves. From both, we form beliefs. Beliefs from hearing and reading, are of two general types:
The first is when the perceived is like a “Revealed Divine”. The second is when the perceived results from following someone's report of following a recipe. From both, there follows many “explainers” who speak and write about what the original perceptions “mean”. For the “Revealed Divine” explainers, meanings expand exponentially large. (e.g., For the Protestant Bible there has arisen some 700+ different types of beliefs based explainers writings and words of a “Divine Revealed” about one who called himself “a son of Man”.
The second type is about “recipe work” and what follows from it. Anyone can repeat a recipe, make perceptions of it, and form beliefs from the perceptions. Those following this procedure, find that all their “good “recipes” have three parts. These are:
1. Make an observation of some thing happening or seen during a recipe, and describe it. (Called making an Observation.)
2. Make a guess, educated or otherwise, about how parts of the observations interact, relate or work together (Called making a Hypothesis.)
3. From the Hypothesis statement, make some prediction for what should follow during a procedure "if the Hypothesis is true", and make a test to see if it is indeed true. (Called Testing).
These steps are called “The Scientific Method”. They are what science “is”. But, in common speech, there are some different meanings of science. One is as a noun and is the collection of all things that have been found to be “most true and useful” by The Scientific Method. These are called theories. Another is as a verb, and means “doing The Scientific Method”. So we have both noun and verb sciences of physics, biology, economics, etc. In their early stages, most sciences are mainly observations, later they begin to contain hypotheses and their testing, and finally become theories. Once a science has matured to have sound and reliable theories, it is ready to be applied and becomes an engineering discipline (some include management, I don’t yet). The engineering stages are still science, but the science is of “how to design", using noun types of sound science theories for a purpose, with safety, economy, reliability, etc., features included in the design as needed!
History is what historians tell us it is. Their stories are all interesting; but also quite different. So probably some are not too true. We can believe what we hear or read that people say; and we can believe what we perceive ourselves. From both, we form beliefs. Beliefs from hearing and reading, are of two general types:
The first is when the perceived is like a “Revealed Divine”. The second is when the perceived results from following someone's report of following a recipe. From both, there follows many “explainers” who speak and write about what the original perceptions “mean”. For the “Revealed Divine” explainers, meanings expand exponentially large. (e.g., For the Protestant Bible there has arisen some 700+ different types of beliefs based explainers writings and words of a “Divine Revealed” about one who called himself “a son of Man”.
The second type is about “recipe work” and what follows from it. Anyone can repeat a recipe, make perceptions of it, and form beliefs from the perceptions. Those following this procedure, find that all their “good “recipes” have three parts. These are:
1. Make an observation of some thing happening or seen during a recipe, and describe it. (Called making an Observation.)
2. Make a guess, educated or otherwise, about how parts of the observations interact, relate or work together (Called making a Hypothesis.)
3. From the Hypothesis statement, make some prediction for what should follow during a procedure "if the Hypothesis is true", and make a test to see if it is indeed true. (Called Testing).
These steps are called “The Scientific Method”. They are what science “is”. But, in common speech, there are some different meanings of science. One is as a noun and is the collection of all things that have been found to be “most true and useful” by The Scientific Method. These are called theories. Another is as a verb, and means “doing The Scientific Method”. So we have both noun and verb sciences of physics, biology, economics, etc. In their early stages, most sciences are mainly observations, later they begin to contain hypotheses and their testing, and finally become theories. Once a science has matured to have sound and reliable theories, it is ready to be applied and becomes an engineering discipline (some include management, I don’t yet). The engineering stages are still science, but the science is of “how to design", using noun types of sound science theories for a purpose, with safety, economy, reliability, etc., features included in the design as needed!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
WISDOM FOR US
We are a nation of Principles, that the middlemen have heard as Principals and made into a "game" of personalities' and their showmanship!
But for us in the streets, Principles come first! They seem to be strongly held by us, but fuzzy amongst and rarely spoken. of They are usually strongly acted upon. WE THE PEOPLE need to bring them out in a stronger focus for us all. To start such a "popular exposition" of these Principles, I offer mine. They are in rank from highest to lowest: You all must critique and add!
1. No matter what, one must philosophize.---Bertrand Russel(?)
2. Know thyself.---Socrates/Plato
3. All persons are created equal with life, liberty, justice and property rights.---Declaration of Independence++
4. We pursue the greatest good for the greatest number: but with the least bad/damage to all least numbers.--- equality.
5 We have given you a Republic, if only you can keep it.---Benjamin Franklin re Constitution.
6. But now all men must know the law.---George Washington re Constitution.
7. Ignorance of the law is not "no excuse"; but, it is impossible to know all the law we now have.---Anonymous.
8. God does not play dice.---Albert Einstein.
9. Mankind stupidly plays too much dice: all risk is manageable and minimizable, so play it smart.---Recent Anonymous.
10. If you pay taxes you are an unwilling buyer.---Anonymous
11. Let the buyer beware.---Very old saying orginally in Latin: coreor emptor(?).
12. We are all always first and formost members of the militia; for eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty and Justice.---truth.
13 Don't trust but verify.---a corrected Reaganism.
14. We have met the enemy and he is us!---Pogo.
15. There's a sucker born every minute.---P. T. Barnum.
16. Any government that can loose one of its accepted Amendments (our XXVII-th) for 100 years, is a sucker's government and we want no part of such "messing up".---anonymous ex bureaucrat and military personage.
These are my cut at making more explicit for all of us our true "street and jury level citizen voters truths". They are held above and before the first paragraph of the US Constitution and is our common law of he commons in the street, use it in juries.
But for us in the streets, Principles come first! They seem to be strongly held by us, but fuzzy amongst and rarely spoken. of They are usually strongly acted upon. WE THE PEOPLE need to bring them out in a stronger focus for us all. To start such a "popular exposition" of these Principles, I offer mine. They are in rank from highest to lowest: You all must critique and add!
1. No matter what, one must philosophize.---Bertrand Russel(?)
2. Know thyself.---Socrates/Plato
3. All persons are created equal with life, liberty, justice and property rights.---Declaration of Independence++
4. We pursue the greatest good for the greatest number: but with the least bad/damage to all least numbers.--- equality.
5 We have given you a Republic, if only you can keep it.---Benjamin Franklin re Constitution.
6. But now all men must know the law.---George Washington re Constitution.
7. Ignorance of the law is not "no excuse"; but, it is impossible to know all the law we now have.---Anonymous.
8. God does not play dice.---Albert Einstein.
9. Mankind stupidly plays too much dice: all risk is manageable and minimizable, so play it smart.---Recent Anonymous.
10. If you pay taxes you are an unwilling buyer.---Anonymous
11. Let the buyer beware.---Very old saying orginally in Latin: coreor emptor(?).
12. We are all always first and formost members of the militia; for eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty and Justice.---truth.
13 Don't trust but verify.---a corrected Reaganism.
14. We have met the enemy and he is us!---Pogo.
15. There's a sucker born every minute.---P. T. Barnum.
16. Any government that can loose one of its accepted Amendments (our XXVII-th) for 100 years, is a sucker's government and we want no part of such "messing up".---anonymous ex bureaucrat and military personage.
These are my cut at making more explicit for all of us our true "street and jury level citizen voters truths". They are held above and before the first paragraph of the US Constitution and is our common law of he commons in the street, use it in juries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)