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