"We The People" – An Invitation for True Reform


The following can be found at Joel Skousen‘s website (philosophy) (World Affairs):

  • 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:
    1. PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER FEE.
    2. PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
    3. 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
There is the individual sovereignty, the family sovereignty, and government sovereignty as a nation among other nations of the world. Government associations are merely extensions of the sovereignty of the individuals composing such associations.
The rights and liberties of an individual is sovereignty concerning their personal affairs; but cannot be in direct and harmful conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
The family also has sovereign powers that are different from individual sovereignty. Parents are responsible for the protection and training of their children; providing a balance of authority and responsibility of the parents of those children. Except in cases of clear abuse or endangerment of children, governments have no authority of the sovereignty of the family.
A government is simply an association of individuals, but as a group they must recognize individual freedom over the collective; yet still operate and legislate according to the need of all citizens of that sovereign nation.
Governments should never be afforded the power to intercede in the affairs of parents and children as long as parents are not proven guilty of gross cruelty or extreme negligence which threatens the life of the child; and this is clearly defined in constitutional law. However, in order for a family to preserve its sovereignty from the encroachment of government, parents must care for their children and be responsible for their welfare and actions.
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.

If the Supreme Court declares certain acts constitutional which a state believes is a violation of the original compact, it can simply disregard it under the doctrine that unconstitutional infringements on state or individual sovereignty (involving fundamental or contract rights) are null and void, and unenforceable. If the highest court rules the law constitutional and government decides to enforce the law with police powers, the state has to choose between compliance or secession, involving the loss of certain benefits as members of the union–primarily a matter of facilitated trade and joint protection powers. On all non-criminal matters, severance of relations with a state would be the only consequence of law–no jail terms for state officers would be proper or permissible.

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.

It is important that all citizens know their rights and proper exercise of it under the rule of law; for without rule of law, we have mob rule and that is why pure democracy has never or can never work in keeping a free republic as that which the Founders have established.
It is our duty, as natural born and naturalized citizens of the United States to not only uphold and be knowledgeable of those laws established by the Founders of the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, but ensure that those we choose to represent We the Peopleunderstand, uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. Any elected official who does not do so should be lawfully impeached or recalled from that office; as prescribed by the laws governing such actions, and if found guilty sent back to the private sector and replaced by a more competent and constitutionally-minded individual.
So is the case of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama(alias Barry Soetoro) who not only doesn’t have a legal birth certificate and whose nationality is uncertain, but incriminating evidence demonstrates that he may have compromised his legal identification in the form of his social security number. In addition, during his presidency, he has not only ignored constitutional law, but has publicly declared that the office of the President of the United States, referring to himself, is above the law and has applied illegal authority as prescribed for that government office according to the United States Constitution. The powers of government and each of its branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary) have been limited in its powers, as well as separated powers for the purpose of maintaining a democratic republic, as Thomas Jeffersondescribed and James Madisoncreated based upon historical political philosophy and its pros and cons.
There are many ways our Republic is unique, but the primary reason can be found in our Constitution. It is a document of national laws, combined with its amendments that serve as a Bill of Rights, that was created to overcome the changing of times and apply to an ever-changing society. It can only be changed, amended, or a portion deleted by Congress through a vote of two-thirds majority and the majority of states ratify said amendment. It has been evident in history that this flexibility to changing conditions within the American society that required an amendment to be added, such as declaring that no person can lawfully be a slave and all citizens, regardless of race or gender have the right to exercise their right to vote – free from coercion of any sort.
Much of what the federal government has taken up itself to have power over, should have been delegated to the state governments. A strong and lawful central government, we call federal, is important in a unified, free, and sovereign nation made up of unified states; however that central government must know and ensure that limitations set forth in the Constitution of the United States are implemented.
We must begin to reform from the bottom rung of the ladder of government, in order to implement any reformation back to the original ideal democratic republic established after we had become a sovereign nation. We the Peoplemust quit asking of government what we can do ourselves as individuals, groups, and associated entities within our society. And when we have those liberties and freedoms returned, we must have individual responsibility in ensuring that the system remains intact and that those who operate our government for We the Peoplemust not only be knowledgeable of the constitutional law, but properly enforce it. No bill created in either the Senate or House of Representatives of Congress should be presented to the floor for vote unless it has passed a scrutiny of its compliance with the US Constitution.
If We the People do not ensure that these reforms and proper changes are made to our government and the attitudes of the American people, our nation will be cast into the dust bins of history of other great civilizations.
At the very least, We the People should be concerned about leaving a legacy, a truly free nation, to our children who are not educated by a consensus, but are educated to be knowledgeable and free to open discussion – as well as upholding and protecting the Constitution of the United States.
If you agree and wish to do something, and live in Door County, Wisconsin, email me at kalehman49@yahoo.comand join the Door Peninsula Patriots, a group of the Constitutional Posse made up of country sheriff’s and constitutionally minded citizens who want to see real “Change” and implement true reform of our government and those officials who operate it for We the People.
Liberals”, “Progressives”, and “Socialists” – or anyone who believes our Constitution is “outdated” or needs to imitate another nation’s constitution – need not apply.
If you are from a different county and are interested, check out the Constitutional Sheriff’s Posse site and see if a group has been established – and, if you are accepted, you can start a group representing your county. In order to reform our government, we must first reform ourselves and arm ourselves with knowledge of the US Constitution and its amendments and prevent those who are attempting to ignore or destroy it. Eventually this change will reach the top.
Don’t ever let anyone believe that you do not have the power as an individual, because although individual freedom is paramount – it is the unification of the People that make things happen and keep those liberties of individual freedom.
This association, the Constitutional Sheriff’s Posse, and subsequent county groups are not promoters of any political party or club; and are focused upon constitutional principles. It is not a political forum, but a growing community who wants to see real “Change” in America – from the “bottom – up”.
Advertisements