- PRINCIPLE #1: ALL PERSONS ARE RIGHTFULLY SOVEREIGN OVER THEIR OWN AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
- PRINCIPLE #2: FAMILIES SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER ALL FAMILY AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OR PRESENT AN IMMINENT, PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE LIFE OF INCLUDED CHILDREN
- PRINCIPLE #3: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE
- PRINCIPLE #4: GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE FORMED BY INITIAL UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THOSE TO BE GOVERNED BY SUCH, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUTUAL DEFENSE FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS.
- PRINCIPLE #5: CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE BY COVENANT AND QUALIFICATION RATHER THAN BY BIRTH, WHEREBY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, AND THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES (GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN) ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED.
- PRINCIPLE #6: EQUAL JUSTICE (not results) SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ALL CITIZENS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT STRICTLY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF ALL LAWMAKING POWER TO THE DEFENSE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
- PRINCIPLE #7: GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FINANCED BY USER FEES FOR ALL DIRECT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS AND GENERAL TAXES FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICES (DEFENSE, JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION, AND LEGISLATION); THE LATTER SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS.
- PRINCIPLE #8: MILITARY AND POLICE POWER OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHERE THERE EXISTS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS, AND TO ENFORCE LAWS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND BASED UPON THOSE RIGHTS. ANY ASSISTANCE FOR LIBERTY GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THIS NATION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY GOVERNMENT BUT CARRIED OUT BY VOLUNTARY MEASURES.
- PRINCIPLE #9: CITIZENS SHOULD BE PRIVATELY ARMED NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME, BUT TO ACT AS THE ULTIMATE FORCE AGAINST POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE CITIZEN COVENANT.
PRINCIPLE #10: GOVERNMENT MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE AREAS OF UNLIMITED INTRUSION:
PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER FEE.
PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
PROSECUTION OR MAKING ANY ACT A CRIME IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC COMPLAINANT OR VICTIM, EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE
These are the principles that were created by the Founders of the United States government and its Constitution, that amendments were added in order to preserve in writing the rights and liberties of American citizens of the United States, writing the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Today there are 27 amendments.
Sovereignty refers to the possession of ultimate authority within a certain framework of law.
While children have many times had to suffer from the poor decisions of parents, that seems to be one of the necessary prices to pay for freedom. To allow the government to scrutinize the decisions of parents at any lower level than imminent (not the mere possibility of) threat to life, is to allow the government total ultimate authority over instruction, safety, discipline, nutrition and medical care. In short, all children become “wards of the state” which, besides being impractical, is a violation of the fundamental rights of parents. As a fundamental premise, the state can only legitimately interfere in family affairs in protection of the right to life. … Given a high level of evil influences in a pluralistic society, most good parents would exercise their freedom to form covenant societies with other like minded people in order to shield their children from many of these harmful influences. … it is better for parents to realize that THEY are responsible to ensure that they protect their developing children from influences that they deem harmful. Religious parents who allow their children to be constantly exposed to mindless television and the pervasive undisciplined bad behavior of public school children, or who live in an unsavory neighborhood, can hardly complain when their children develop problems. … Lastly, one of the unique aspects of these principles is the final element which safeguards the family from intrusion by government. When there is a gray area concerning whether a certain family action is “life threatening” or “grossly negligent” and the state rules to take the children from the parents, the children can refuse to go with the state. More than any other safeguard, this effectively deters a state from declaring a family’s religious beliefs as “gross mental cruelty” or spanking as “physical cruelty”.Within the society of citizens, laws enacted by majority rule are limited to those issues which directly and harmfully affect members of the majority, thus maintaining the free will of individuals and other minorities from democratic tyranny.
The original founders of the American constitution were doctrinally committed to the concept of initial unanimous consent–what they called “common consent.” The doctrine of the citizen compact goes back to Anglo-Saxon days, and was manifested at varying times, including the time when the original Pilgrims formed their Mayflower Compact. In essence, common consent meant that no man could be compelled to submit to the rule of the majority unless he voluntarily consented. Refusing to consent meant that he was still a “freeman” acting alone and free insofar as he did not tread on others’ rights. … If a state wants to attract the best people, the constitution must guarantee justice and fairness to the highest degree. The more arbitrary and capricious a constitution is, the less potential for universal support. … Secession was an important doctrine for maintaining the essence of common consent. If we begin from the proposition that fundamental freedoms cannot be taken away by majority rule–they can only be ceded by individual voluntary consent, then we derive the fundamental premise that a majority cannot implant any system of government upon other freemen without their initial consent. This then implies that those who consent to majority will still possess the right to leave the group at any time, if the compact is broken and if the majority begins to encroach upon freedoms specifically not ceded or limited in the original agreement.
Secession does not have to mean war, only that each body’s ultimate sovereignty be respected. The northern states clearly violated the sovereignty of the southern states in forcing them back into the union. Such use of force clearly sets a precedent that no matter how tyrannical the Federal government becomes, no state or individual can leave. The peaceful right to secession should be stated in the constitution, and it should protect the fundamental rights of citizens both ways. … No matter how pragmatic we all view the historical benefits of the union, the precedent of forced repatriation is no less onerous than the use of power in the Soviet Union to keep its conquered peoples within its dominance. … As an extension of individual liberty, all men have the right to form a governmental association with others in the pursuit of a more effective defense of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, they may establish independence from all other governments in the pursuit of these fundamental rights.