IDENTITY II

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.

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.

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

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.

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 . . .

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!

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.

ABE LINCOLN'S STAFF

I am by no means a historian. Nor am I a lawyer. I rely on expert sources though who are. My history inclined sources tell me that not only did "Abe" be the only president that came from a "third political party"; but, that his staff consisted of only two persons.

With these, he successfully "sneaked into Washington DC" under fear for his very life to assume the office to which he was elected. He wrote a magnificent "All American Document", the Gettysburg Address. He declared, with the help of Congress whose duty it is to make the formal declaration, war against the south on Constitutional grounds forbidding a state to succeed. He fought this war with an unbelievable mess of generalship bungling and won that war. He freed slaves and led the effort to make slavery illegal. He started, I'm told a rational reconstruction; but, it was soon perverted beyond recognition after his presidency. He carries that "sin of association" still in the south.

All of these were done in difficult times while he himself was suffering what has been described as "debilitating depression".

Compare to us now. We have a president served by a staff of scores of scores, who declared a war by resolution with the help of Congress who also contributed to declaring war by resolution: but who actually has the only War making powers given in the US Constitution: the power to declare war. He has fought this war, or s o we hear, as a possible negligent ex-service person himself, without our knowing his orders to his military, how well those orders are being carried out, and what the reasons are for this war are. And he seems to be only loosing while not supporting and defending the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic, but rather by bending it quite out of shape. Or so it is that my informants indicate.

Perhaps he needs a staff of only two. If Abe can do it, cannot the man from Crawford Ranch TX do so also? Seems cost effective!

UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS.

All these are shortened paraphrases folks:

1. The word liberty is used only once in the Constitution.

2. States can't make money....except they can use silver and gold in transactions.

3. More people know the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag than know the "Constitution's first 

paragraph."

4. There is no Pledge of Allegiance to the US Constitution.

5. The Constitution makes us "Independant" and a "Republic" but are we either.

6. The Constitution has more "Congress shall.." statements than any other.

7. Liberty and Justice are not in the so-called "Bill of Rights".

8. Congress can only "Declare War", not let war become as a "Resolution".

9. The "militia" is to be used only on "US territory" to repel invasions and suppress riots.

10. Bill/Law Making" is well defined, Resolutions are only "mentioned".

11. Nowhere is the process of "delegating" Constitutional power or duties" allowed.

12. Nowhere is "Administrative Law" allowed.

13. "The Rule of Law" phrase is nowhere used in any form except in recent rhetoric.

14. If a treaty or agreement gives away independence, we are not independent.

15. Congress sets the value of our money, it is now "fiat money" having no value.

MILITARY LAW AND US!

There is a separate set of "laws" for those in the military. They seem to have come from the words of the the USA's Constitution for our Congress to regulate, etc., the military.

In the days of our Constitution's writing, it seems to have been very common for a separate set of "common law" like "laws and practices for the military. Such things as "keel hauling" (way worse to my way of thinking than the "waterboarding" apparently practiced today in the US military) and "forced enlistment against ones will" (whose implementors were called press gangs), by the Navy arms and one of our heavy complaints against British rule of the 13 Colonies called out explicitly in our Declaration o Independence, all were Naval accepted common "military discipline measures".

Flogging was also an accepted punishment means. I may be wrong; but the last "common users of flogging" as military punishment and/or disciplinary measures was the French Foreign Legion. In many countries, death for cowardice is allowed by their forms of "military law". Spain, who otherwise has banned the death penalty from its legal system still allows death as a punishment for certain "military crimes".

Treason and several forms of spying and aiding and abbetting an enemy were and still are in some countries punishable by death in many single country and treaty allowed punishments.

The US has cowardice in the face of the enemy as punishable by death. In modern times, this was enacted only one time on one soldier in WW-II.

Present US "military law" is supposedly encoded and enforced via portions of the Congressionally mandated United States Codes. It is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and seems sometimes to be separate from and sometimes to include the Manual for Courts Martial. But is it uniform? And is it followed appropriately?

My logic of the evidence says no. A general officer, or the Naval equivalent Admiral, is allowed to resign from the service, for which many an enlisted man's equivalent punishment was often and informal "sent to walk point in enemy country" (ie death and wounding/maiming probability greatly raised, or by any of several means sent to do "hard time" in Long Binh Jail (yes it was known as "LBJ") during my war. And how does one make sense of Article 15 processes as "lawful due process in all this"?

And is it uniformly adhered to? Evidence seems not. General Officers and even President Eisenhower, i.e. his warming against the "military industrial complex, have a record of "airing ills" at the 11-th hour of their service or later, rather than bring formal charges as they are "supposed to". And lastly, the evidence seems to indicate that a collective military "wrong" seems to be punished only by a very low ranking persons.

Is the UCMJ uniform? Is it just? Can it not be brought more in line with "non military law"? How do we get secret trials here? Is is not time to review and reform military law as written and as practiced? Many of my sources overwhelmingly say YES!

GOVERNMENT SERVANT LAW

It has come to pass, that it is common now for most parts of our Constitutional National Republic's government to have practices that seem to have "just evolved", without being checked for consistency, for not violating "laws of nature", (e.g. one state legislature made it a law that the math and science value of "pi" be forced to be 3 rather than its "known certifiable" true value of 3.14159..., so calculations would be simpler), and all too often "delegating their powers and responsibilities to others".

The worst offenders seem to be in Congress. They have created a huge structure called "Administrative Law", whereby much of the Executive and Judicial branches are allowed to make "their own laws", which are then "rubber stamped" by Congress, sometime with the "approving terms" that "these are just mild administrative rules, that said "branch' is the expert on", and sometimes with no words of justification at all.

My review of these is that they are not allowed in the Constitution as a granted "power or responsibility", so if they are to be allowed as "law" at all, it is to be done by the States or the people (My translation of the Constitution's word States includes all levels of a Republic's "States" down to the individual "citizen". I expect the "lawyer" vested interests to "counterattack".)

In all such "rubber stamped bodies of this Administrative Law", I find massive portions of self servant bureaucratic words whose only aim that I can see it to serve the interests of that bureaucracy or it's "slush funding" constituencies. This is government run amuck and is most definitely NON-CONSTITUTIONAL. It has resulted in the massive United States Codes, which I challenge any and all to "derive from Constitutionality".

The judiciary is no better! But because of it's smaller size, it appears not to be so damaging in its "Government Servant Law" structures. I disagree. There is no jury above a certain level in court cases, and in many "lower subsets of its laws", such as court due process, jury treatment and directions processes, hierarchical seating and pomp and ceremony within a court, Law by "no comment", which our "Supreme Court" uses to let a lower court decision stand, (How do we know they actually made such a ruling and it is not just a loss of paperwork, e.g. Amendment XXVII) and the already mentioned "wrongly assumed Power of Judicial Review" by the Judiciary.

The way this Constitutionality determination" works is that someone must have a "legal case', either civil or criminal, for which he pays considerable legal fees. That case must rather "willy nilly" work it's way up through the court system, the legal fees paid by the civilians, until it has made it, rather gratuitously to the level of being "possibly considered by a jury-less Supreme Court. This is too frivolous to be allowed to continue and puts an undue and random penalty on civilians for expenses.

In this context, I see our Congress, as duplicitously duplicational, which it need not be. Of its two arms only the House appears Democratic. So, lets do away with the Senate, take their office space and budgets and form an arm that determines Constitutionality, law of nature compliant and both frugal and efficient in its impact on our Commons, and let this body have the second vote on all bills/laws/referenda/etc., that the former Senate had. But lets not let it be a politician's den! Much detail remains to determine the details of just how to do this. But it seems to fill two needs simultaneously. So its good!

WORDS AND MEANINGS

In our Constitution there are a lot of words, and many style forms. Those had the meanings "in common use" in the 13 colonies from about 1770 onwards. It is a fact that if words meanings are not defined, many conclusions can be reached by rational people who only have different meanings for the word. Word meanings also change over time "naturally in common conversation use" and become "to have new formal meanings" in limited domains such as the law, government and courts. Often this process both changes the original intent/meaning of a word or a whole document that depends upon that word. Since these words were not defined in our founding documents, their meanings then, and their meanings now are probably different. Initially, the words meant what they did at the times of those writings, and to cover that issue in "matters of law", we have inherited much of Colonial times British "common law" as part of our system of justice. However, many of the present day re-defining of those words have occured in courts, the legislature, and at the lowest level of the practice of law (e.g. cops in the street, low level courts, elected judges, etc.) it operates only on a list of "do's and do not's" that are quite arbitrary and many juries are "directed by judges" as to what they can and cannot do as juries. The constitution gives judges no such power, and Congress has passed many laws to these effects under powers, such as the so-called "necessary and proper" power, without that "necessary and proper" being shown to be so to meet the stated purposes of the Constitution, as in the so-called Preamble and Amendments.

This use of "common law" is actually still a part of our legal system, and can be used to the advantages of the citizenry. However, it seems that those "presently controlling the legal and legislative" systems are working hard to negate it.

One of the most common abuses is the negation of verbal agreements. In the 1770 era, writing was not a very common skill, and many "contracts" were verbal.  In jury sittings, evidence is and was allowed based upon verbal testimony of the facts the speaker believed true. That still is the case often; but often also it is not. Public officials, juries, soldiers, and others are made to make oaths of performance. Those oaths are verbal contracts between speaker and listener, and dire consequences follow from their being broken.

But in others, such as marriage contracts/agreements, which the present legal system now calls only marriage vows, these verbal contracts are not accepted. Instead, there are whole bodies of these low level laws, which most of us know nothing about that are set to rule all that follows a marriage under the rubric of "family law". I maintain these are non-Constitutional and that a jury of peers are the only ones able  to judge the present "commonly accepted meanings" of words, and they are fully capable of judging cases of verbal contracts  based on their own observations of speakers words and reactions. And that is how it should be. An elected judge, or a lawyer in a system where his interests must be assumed to be "self-interest" is likely out of touch of the world of the common man of "peers", and is biased toward his interests. So on the basis of their ignorance and bias, they should not be a part of the interpretive nor the decision on guilt/fairness in law and/or equity. By common law, which is still part of our historical law, verbal contracts must be accepted as valid for jury decision in courts.

Prepare yourself to hear all sorts of arguments contrary to this, mostly from those who gain from its not being "presently allowed"; but believe only your neighbors with no such self iterest and your fellow jurors, whom you must test to see whether they have any such self interest.

THE BIG EIGHT?!

So for now, I get that our Constitutional purposes are to be at least:

1. By and for "We the People" and our Posterity, and as such is interpreted by "We the People": 
2. for forming a more perfect Union,
3. to establish Justice,
4. to insure Domestic Tranquility,
5. to provide for the Common Defense
6. to promote the General Welfare, and
7. to secure Liberty.

and some more that the clerical, grammar, punctuation, spelleing and word processor capabilites of the time allowed to be mis-written are:

1. To promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts, (note 7 + 1 = 8)

MORE TAKE OUTS

It seems that in the last 300, and maybe even earlier, there has come into the psyche of those who often end up in government or positions of authority, to stray and wander from what our charters allow them to do. They also seem to begin "gaming" their acts, words, and even the charter itself. Many say this requires us to go back to "the founding Fathers intent". I tried that and could not find a consensus description of this other than the words written in the four documents in the first "post". So, starting from there and what I personally have observed or derived from my reading of the documents themselves, and my observations on governmental practices generally, I get more non-constitutionality for our joint consideration as "take outs" from the list of acceptable practices. Some are:

1. No time limit on the state's time for approval of amendments or referendums is given to any of the the governmental branches established by the Constitution. Therefore said time limits, if any, can only be established by "the states" or "the people". Therefore all past proposed "Amendments et al" remain as active candidates for approval by the states regardless of wordings implying time limits, and will remain so in perpetuity". And all such statements, such as those found at the end of several Amendments to the effect that "this article shall be inoperative unless ratified...within (some time limit)" are non-constitutional. Then if follows that all such past forms and the ERA remain ratifiable candidates, as do all other such time governmental "time limits" that are states and the peoples rights to determine, if the elect to do so at all.

2. Since Article II, Section 8, para 8 gives Congress a power "in order to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts..." it seems that that is a purpose of the Constitution that is fully equal to the first six at the beginning of the Constitution. It follows then that no office holder can hold any office if he does not in any way believe in and/or fully support "Science, the useful Arts, and Progress of Science an Progress in the useful Arts". A good many present office holders and candidates are thereby full disqualified from holding or pursuing any office of our Constitutional government. Televised statements by many current office holders and candidates is proof enough for their immediate resignation and/or withdrawal from candidacy now. So "let it be so!"

3. It being hundreds of years since the writing of the constitution, and that science, math, engineering, and technology have changed our capabilities to function "jointly" in ways unbelievable, even 10 years ago many would say, there seems to no longer be a need for many operations that are now way better, faster, and more completely and accurately done with the many "new technologies." Voice votes "counted auditorially" being one for sure, and full total video/audio recording of all actions of Congress being another, to be no longer allowable. (Seems identical in "actionable content" to #2 immediately above.) And if no other data would suffice to convince, the fact that "government" lost the XXVII-th Amendment for over 100 years, what else have they misplaced, and what possible "general welfare, etc." reason would we need to not do so immediately. So, "let it be so!"

4. And now redundancy. It bothers me as needless and confusable rhetoric. The several Amendment statements, and their cousins less easily identified elsewhere, to the effect that:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this...by appropriate legislation" is needless so long as it stays within its granted powers. Moreover, why just the Congress? Should not all branches, departments, etc., have the power, within their each separately granted elsewhere powers, "...to enforce by appropriate..."?

5. Secrecy! This is a thorny one. I see more abuse in it's use:

• Every secret weapon of mass destruction "development" was classified secret, yet each was know to "enemies" who got them, before we could even know of them.
• There is a gaming strategy "within the beltway" and perhaps everywhere, to "leak secrets"with no fear, when it is politically in the interest of some special interest, either within or without (yes I mean both meanings) government.
• It has gone so far as to limit the actionable information that our "representatives" have at hand to make decisions as our representatives, by the artifice of selecting only a few of Congress to have these types of information. That's not full representation of We the people!
• Many a dirty deed has been fully and nefariously done, and effectively "buried from public knowledge" by this "secrecy mantle". How does anyone do anything for us without having full open knowledge of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? They simply cannot! So in these regimes, we have only non-Constitutionality!

THE BEGINNINGS

In the beginnings of our cognition of "anything", all "anythings" were quite fuzzy. This may sound like only symantics or "philosophy"; But, "No matter what, we all must philosophize!" (A universal truism said by ones greater than me--but that I take as true in all the following.) This remains true for Constitutionality, and for the last post on Non-Constitutionality. Said another way, by other greats: "First define your terms."

There is a great bit of gamesmanship in all of this though. But no gamesmanship is allowed among a group holding similarly defined terms and "philosophies". At present, the game of those in positions of government is purely bureaucratics = climb the success ladder, dump on all subordiants, compete with all peers, grab turf and budget at all costs, and like teflon, let nothing"bad" stick unto you. In this view, they are the preditors (actually canibalistic predators) and we the prey, unless we decide not to be. Decide that by chosing your beginning.

Mine as I was taught is a mish-mash of half truths, fable, and nonsense, without a single clear principle that was more than "a clausal only" argument piece, useful to the predators. I got my beginnings from reason, reality and thought. It is only that:

1. Present Americana began at least before the "French and Indiasn Wars", something I'm slowly being convinced is actually the "real" WW-I of the western war.
2. It had a lot of britishisms in its society, practices, definitions, and "principles", but more importantly it had the beginnings of revolution change and independence.
3. The first of these in importance was the concept of "The Commons", and the second it's cousin "The Militia", which was practiced upon the Village Green, or Commons.
4. The second was the Sons of Neptune who united against sea-born injustice and tyrrany (herinafter to be the opposite of liberty) and founght.
5. The third was the Sons of Liberty, who united against all injustice and tyrrany fought.
6. The fourth was the Continental Congresses and their Continental Army.
7. The fifth was the Articles of Confederation between the 13 colonies.
8. And after that bureaucracy set in as:

• A "convention" was called to "improve" the Articles of Confederation.
• That convention instead rewrote all of government, changed the rules by which government change would occur, and did so all in secret (the "truth" remains still not "known", but only being declared so with the sanctifying of a private journal by a latter day President.
• The process of adoption of the "new form" must be said to have been one of coercion.
• Wars were declared and fought, though not without outside help.
• And the US Revolution, a minor sideplay of the "real" WW-I.

From there much has happened, and many decrees of sanctification and revisionism followed. it can all be considered hearsay and folklore for establishing beginnings and definings. The above alone is more than enough to establish THE BEGINNINGS, which will follow with THE BIG 7?!

THE BIG FOUR?!

If we're Non-Constitutional, then we need to become Constitutional! Right? The www reference to our "transcribed" Constitution is at www.NARA.gov in three parts. And it's loaded with sidebars, bypasses, and "various ad hoc commentaries" that can seriously divert one.

1. There is no section marked "Preamble" in the original document. There is a first section beginning "WE THE PEOPLE..." (This first section has come to be called "The Preamble".) that states the purposes and goals of the following documentation. There is no title for this document either. (It has come to be called called "The US Constitution".)---So no act, law, treaty, resolution, etc., is Constitutional unless it is consistent with the stated purposes. If they are not, they are Non-Constitutional. Candidates for such Non-Constitutional items are Congressional and Presidential wars of resolution, vice Congressional Declarations of War, The use of the National Guard off US territories, etc., and the 20-th so-called "necessary and proper" power of Congress when used opposing the purposes.---And also, having once traveled through Missouri, I say "Show me these acts, laws, resolutions, etc., do serve the purposes fully, and stated within the act or law, etc., enacting statements."
2. A as "All rights not specifically..." are reserved for the states and the people. The power of interpretation of the Constitution, is not given to the Supreme Court.---So between the states and the people, I choose to let it be by the people in jury service or convention. Such would be Constitutional!
3. The President is given no power to make law signing statements, to refer to them, nor to use them in any other manner. He is to veto or sign only, nothing more is allowed. So quit the signing statement nonsense, it's Non-Constitutional!
4. The President is to give a "State of The Union" statement to Congress from time to time. As in my bank statements, my business plans, our "stock prospectuses", accounting, etc., documents so the "State of The Union" should be written as a legal non fraudulent document, and contain sub-references from his "subordinate Departments" of the same style and quality.---So, let the State of The Union be such a written document, and let the President demand and include supporting statements from his "subordinates", as he is Congressionally allowed. Anything less is empty and void. As it's now practiced, I call it Non-Constitutional.
5. No, I did not lie, the above are my big 4. But, there is more to come, I hope, from both me and from you! It/they shall begin with #5.