Lawfully revoking abused powers
Updated: 4:25P EST, 10 Mar 2006 -- spell check complete
Some have raised concerns the Congress and the President are not enforcing the law. That’s shocking.
Some have argued that there’s nothing that can be done, or nothing will happen. That’s surprising.
Others have a more hopeful outlook: something can be done.
Indeed, there is.
[ For your convenience, there is a Constitutional Convention Archive [ Click ]
First thing’s first. We have options. They are lawful.
Second, the unlawful conduct is clear.
Third, there are lawful powers that can be used to protect the constitution.
Fourth, those powers are not being exercised, rather they are being abused.
The issue before us: What is to be done. That is simple. We need to look at something called contracts. That is at the heart of the Constitution.
Think of the Constitution as a set of agreements between the people. There is some give and take; The people give some things, the government gives some things; and in exchange the people and government get other things.
The Constitution is a special kind of contract. It is an agreement between us – We, the People – and the government.
In short, the Constitution is merely a written confirmation of how we expect to treat each other, what will be done, and what is to be done if there is a problem.
The Constitution is a special kind of agreement. The Constitution is there to protect the people.
Rules of the Constitution
The constitution exists to protect the people, not condone abuse of power. When government uses the Constitution – then ignores it – to abuse, we need no rely on what offers no protection.
Going forward, what is needed is a solution.
One approach is to strip the Federal Government of powers they abuse.
Some are concerned that the changes will affect the balance of power. They claim the interests of the “office” need to be considered. However, it is too late to make that claim. The claim of “the office” should have been considered before the power was abused; a reasonable person would know that abusing one’s power is not the right thing to do.
Ideally, we would like to distinguish the individuals from the branch or office. Namely, the president as a person is not the same as the Executive Branch. This is important when considering solutions. Ideally, we would like to simply discipline the single individual, and rather than lawfully affect the greater Office of the President or Executive Powers. It’s far simpler to discipline an individual than it is to restructure the entire Constitutional framework.
However, there’s a problem. Individual personalities in Congress and the Executive Branch have refused to assert the rule of law. At this point it doesn’t matter who they are, or why they are doing. Bluntly, the ideal approach – that of simply disciplining a single, individual person – shows no prospect of occurring.
However, we need to consider the Constitution and the agreement: We have given up certain things, in exchange for promises of other things.
This is where we find ourselves. Today’s problem is clear: The system is broken. There is no interest in Congress in preserving the Constitution or protecting the people against the NSA lawlessness.
Let’s consider the issue of bargaining and trust. If we have an existing agreement to do or not do something – protect, and not violate rights – but that agreement is not simply broken, but ignored, we have to ask about the nature of the agreements we have:
The issue before is: What is the nature of the enforcement mechanism to regulate and administer the relationship between the People and the Government.
The problem is simple: It’s broken. But rather than fix it – as the framers had expected competing factions to do, by separating powers – the separated powers have not checked power. Rather, they’ve done the opposite: Done nothing but assent to the abuse of power.
If someone has an agreement to do or not do something – and they do the opposite – a reasonable person would question whether they would want to believe they were serious about agreements.
But the Federal Government is not a person. It is a creature of the Constitution. It exists as a solid entity that cannot be changed unless the Constitution changes.
The problem we have is that the individuals who are in the various branches are treating their separated power as if it was combined; then doing nothing when that power is abused.
The individuals are unresponsive to the self-evident abuses. Rather, they assent to the abuse, and do not publicly discuss what is or is not wrong. Rather, they fail to assert their lawful power – failing to exercise powers that even the minority members can assert – that of ordering the NSA IG to do something which the full Committee refuses to do.
The question that arises is: What is to be done when the people refuse to budge and do what is lawfully expected of them: To assert their power and check the abuse.
Some have argued that nothing can be done.
Yet, there is a simple issue. When it comes to contracts, when the mechanism required to enforce that contact is not working – and will not, or refuses to be remedied, or stop the problems – then we are left with only one option.
We have to move away from attempting to work with the individuals, and we have to focus on the system framework of the document to focus on a solution.
The issue isn’t whether the particular individuals agree or disagree with what they should or shouldn’t do; rather, we have to take a step back and say, “Given what we hoped to achieve with this arrangement, what adjustment in the arrangement has to be lawfully created to ensure the objective of the arrangement remains achievable, viable, and the end result.
We have to draw the line in the sand and say, “We have attempted to work with the individuals but that has failed to achieve the intended outcomes of the Constitution – protect rights, ensure power is lawfully used, and respect each other; rather, all efforts to achieve the desired outcome are not longer consistent with the individual actors.”
That is not a crisis. That is merely a self-evident requirement to attempt a reform.
The answer is rather simple. The curious issue is the quandary this puts both the individuals and Federal Government in.
IN short, they are in a no-win situation. The key is to know this from the outset; and then simply look at the arguments they make.
If you get nothing out of this, the key point is twofold:
This note is going to focus on the quandary the Federal Government now finds itself. On one hand it refuses to honor its agreements with the American people; at the same time it points to the “agreement” as the reason why things cannot be changed.
Also, the Federal government is doing something else related to this quandary. At the very time that they distract attention from their abuse, when some call for changes, the government asserts that the structure must be preserved.
Did you see that? Let me say that again, because this is very important. Notice what they just did. To avoid change, they point to the structure as if it were something that is immovable. That is interesting.
The key point is that they have two standards on the structure. When it comes to following that structure, they ignore it; but when it comes to improving that structure they say – the thing that they ignore – must be given deference.
That’s the key point: This government has a shifting notion on whether the structure of government is or is not to be respected. There is one simple problem: The structure has permitted the abuse to occur; and the individuals have not assented to the rule of law.
The only option – in order to achieve the intended objectives of the Constitution – is to change the structure. But the individuals – who refuse to honor that Constitution – are now pointing to the Constitution as the structure – as it currently exists, and self-evidently fails -- that must be protected.
That is absurd.
First, the goal of the Constitution is to achieve a desired outcome: Mutual benefit.
Second, the promises of the individual actors is to preserve that document
Third, in order to achieve the lawful outcomes of the Constitution we have to entertain a discussion of how to strengthen the Constitution.
Fourth, individuals who ignore the Constitution no longer have a credible voice when they point to the document – which they ignore – as the basis to not change the document.
The purpose of this note is simply to discuss the nature of the current situation and the balance there is between power and abuse.
For purposes of making sense of the issues, let’s call it what it is: A mess. But the mess can be understood.
The problem we have today, is this government has mixed things up. This government believes it is there to protect – or not protect, in this case – the people.
In other words, the government is shifting attention away from the document – and having you focus on whether the government is or isn’t doing its job. Even when given blatant evidence of malfeasance, the government asserts it is doing things fine. Never mind the negligence, war crimes, reckless methods of supporting the troops, refusal to honor the Constitution, and inaction in the wake of violations of the law by the President.
The point is that the government and individuals are different than the Constitution.
The issue isn’t whether you agree or disagree with whether the individual or system is flawed; the issue is that the focus of the individuals has been to get the people to argue over who can or cannot best manage the mess.
It doesn’t work.
The way forward is to recognize that the political battles are over the wrong issues. It cannot be credibly argued that one individual is better or worse in managing this mess when the structural system permits this mess to occur.
The way forward is to take a step back and see: The structural reforms within the constitution need to be the heart of the debate. The individual actors no longer feel bound by the existing terms; and when the structural systems within the Constitution fail, they refuse to take the high ground and see what is going on: The Constitution as current designed fails to check the abuse of power.
This means that the current Constitution – as it exists, is designed, and has been put into practice by individuals – is flawed.
The way forward is not to argue over who is or is not best suited to manage a flawed Constitution, but to forge a plan to strengthen the Constitution.
Strengthening a Constitution does not mean that something is necessarily added, subtracted, or modified within the Constitution
Rather, to strengthen something one needs to take a step back and ask and ask, “What is a more effective way to achieve the desired results of that Constitution: Preserve rights, and check power.
The problem we have is that when we have this type of discussion, we are told “Nothing can be done” or that we have to give up rights in order to achieve something else.”
Well, that’s not the objective of the Constitution. We did not give up our rights; we gave up our power in exchange for having our rights protected.
The way forward is simple. We no longer need to recognize the original agreement – the individuals within the current system no longer recognize it, so there’s no reason we should either.
But this doesn’t mean trashing the Constitution. Rather, it means putting a lid on the Constitution that is already in the trash.
There’s one very simple, and lawful way this is done: It is to revoke the powers that are being abused.
This Constitution cannot protect us from the abusive government actors; nor does it mandate that the rights we have been promised to have protected will be protected. Rather, this Constitution permits – and does not stop – the leaders from ignoring our rights, while at the same time mandating that we continue to assent to our agreement.
That is called an imbalanced agreement: The government mandates that we keep our end of the bargain – give up our power – but the government refuses to keep its end of the bargain – protect our rights.
This doesn’t mean that the Constitution is actually dead or gone. Rather, it means that the Constitution has to be seen for what it is: Defective. The way forward is not – I repeat – not to say, “We can do what we want.” No.
Rather, it is clear: The way forward is to recognize what must be tweaked in the Constitution to ensure the intent of the original agreement is preserved: Our rights our protected; and power is separated and not abused.
The simple concept is this: When someone abuses power that we have given them, the way forward is to revoke that power. This doesn’t mean that the Federal Government is gone. No, it just means that that is the starting point of the discussion.
The issue is simple: What abuses are the individual actors willing to stop doing; and which abuses are they unwilling to sanction.
If they are not willing to stop or sanction the abuse, then the power behind that abuse must be stripped from them. That is the general principle of a Constitutional Convention.
It is simply to inquire into what is going on – The way forward is not to listen to “new promises” that they will “play nice”. No, these actors have no credibility. Their word and promises mean nothing.
They are out of the picture for the purpose of this discussion. The only issue is to ask: Whether the power they have is something that they are willing to lawfully use, or whether they choose to abuse it.
The simple answer is: Each of the abuses they engage in are related to power they have been given.
The debate needs to move away from whether they have or have not been caught violating the law; but ask more broadly, how the power that they are abusing will be stripped from them so that they do not continue to abuse the power that remains.
Again, we are not in a discussion about balancing rights against power; rather, we are simply looking at what power has to move where in order to ensure that the power that they have left – at their disposal – is not abused.
Think of a scale. Think of the current power that rests in the Federal Government on one side. Now think of the power “that is not there” that is elsewhere. The 10th Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and People.
So the issue is: What power has to be stripped from the Federal Government and shifted to the States. The key is to ensure that the balance between the Federal Government and States is sufficient to ensure that the Federal Government does not abuse what remains.
A constitutional convention is merely a discussion about what is to be done about the abuses, and where do we go from here. There are no right or wrong answers. Rather, there is simply a discussion of what is to be done to achieve the ultimate objectives of the original Constitution: How to protect our rights, and protect us from the abusive power.
Before we get to that point, make no mistake, there is a chorus of people who have no desire to go down this path. That is the point: The problem we have is that in the back of everyone’s mind, there is a little voice saying, “If we go down this route, then we are going to face Constitutional issues.”
For example, Gonzalez said when asked about the FISA violations and the Youngstown Criteria, that the conclusions of that analysis would raise troubling Constitutional issues.
Also, recall the legal opinion of the Court when it came to the issue of the Canadian who was abused. Rather than say that the rendition was wrong, the court found that the Constitutional issues were two awkward to deal with.
The point is that we continue to hear more anecdotes that the issue is not whether the power is or is not abused – it is being abused – but what real remedy is required to achieve the real outcome of the Constitution: Protect rights, separate power, and protect us from abusive power.
The point is that this issue is surfacing.
The problem is that people are afraid of facing what is happening: Not simply the unchecked abuse, but to point out what is self-evident subjects oneself to targeting. The silence is feeding the self-evident abuse.
Also, the other fear people have is that they have taken an oath to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution. In their mind this means, “We can’t talk about something else.”
That’s wrong. Because the goal here isn’t to blindly stick with something that is failing; rather, it is to ensure the intended outcomes of that Constitution are achieved: Protect rights, separate power, and protect us from abuse.
We have to take a step back and ask: Is the way that we are framing the purpose of the Constitution really consistent with what we intended. I argue that that point is up for debate.
In my view, the issue – the original intent – of the Constitution should be framed not in terms of “separation of power” but more simply – What must be done to protect our rights from abuse.
One approach is simply to ask which of the powers the Federal Government has – if lawfully revoked or taken away – would most easily achieve the goal: Protect our rights from abuse.
That is what is to be debated at the Constitutional Convention: Which of the Federal Government powers needs to be stripped away to ensure the intent of the Constitution is achieved: Protect our rights from abuse.
See how easy that is? The problem we have is that people inside the government who know what is going on are too afraid to ask the question. They are scared. They are afraid because they are supposed to be afraid: Of the People.
Not that the people will do anything to them. Rather, the individuals in government are afraid of The People in that they will figure out the question and solve the problem without them.
That’s why they enjoy the non-sense. It gives them a sense of importance. But they re just people.
Their problem is that they take an oath to something they know is a mess; but they are unwilling to discuss what is to be done to really do what is in their oath: How to protect our rights from abuse.
The problem all Americans have is that they have sworn an oath to something – the Constitution – that has failed. And nobody wants to say this publicly for fear of being called disloyal to their oath.
But think about that. They talk about the “loyalty to the oath and Constitution” as if it were something they take seriously.
But we’ve already established that it is something that they ignore – they aren’t taking action to hold others accountable for violations of the law.
The problem isn’t simply them. The problem is the Constitution which permits them to engage in this abuse. That’s what needs to change.
The problem is this government – and the individuals – want it both ways on the Constitution and their oath. One on hand:
They can’t have it both ways. One cannot credibly argue “We’re honoring our oath” while at the same time doing nothing when self-evident abuses, violations of the law are occurring . . . and they stand back and do nothing.
In short, they’re stuck in a system – by choice since they freely took the oath – that does not work, does not do what it is intended to do, and has failed to achieve the goal: Protect our rights from abuse.
Let's compare two links:
Link 1: Think back to the Magna Charta. Link: Magna Charta
You might enjoy reading it. I’m not talking about skimming it here on the internet. I’m talking about really printing it out, taking it to a quite place, and really sitting down and thinking about it.
There’s something very interesting. I’m going to let you guess what it is.
Link 2: At the same time, take the Declaration of Intendance. Really read it. [ Click: Links to Declaration of Independence ]
Now, put the two side by side. You’re going to see something pop out. I’m not going to tell you directly what it is, because I want you to figure this out on your own.
I will only tell you something very general. It is a lesson for us as we move forward.
Each of the documents – at one point in history – did not exist.
Consider that for the moment.
In 1199, there was a problem. Thing were not working.
In 1773, there was a problem. Things were not working.
But what was the common thing?
That’s the answer.
Let’s think in very general terms. In 1199 and 1773 there was something very simple going on. This is a very important less for us in 2006.
What happened was people – a small group of people – simply said, “You know, this is really annoying. Isn’t there something that could be done.”
That’s where we are today.
The way forward is forward: What is to be done. That’s what a constitutional convention is all about.
It’s not an attack. It’s not a threat. It’s not a “huge change”. It’s simply making things better to do what is needed – protect our rights from abuse.
If you look at the details in the Magna Charta and Declaration of Independence you can sometimes get lost. Take a big view of both the documents.
All they are are lists of things that were problems – and they listed them.
The Magna Charta is different. Unlike the Declaration of Intendance that simply listed the things that were wrong and said, “Bye,” the Magna Charta does something else – embedded in the Charta are the solutions.
The trick to comparing the Magna Charta and Declaration of Independence is to realize what they are, and what they are not.
The Magna Charta is a list of solutions to problems hidden in the text and known in 1199; the Declaration of Independence offers no similar list of solutions. Rather it merely outlines the problems.
They way forward from 1776 – skipping rapidly to 1789 – was to address the problems in the Declaration.
What we need to do in 2006 is look more to the Magna Charta approach – and outline the solutions to the problems with the abusive power – and then tell the Federal Government this is what the solution is.
The problem we have is that the individuals in the system are not loyal to the Constitution, their oath, or the purpose of the Constitution. They are loyal to the power and their individual right to abuse that power.
But think what we’ve already concluded: The problem isn’t just with the individuals – rather, the real problem is the system permits the abuses.
When we “tell” the Federal Government how “things will be” – we aren’t talking to any individual. Rather, we’re “telling” the Federal Government as a concept: This is what powers we revoke.
That’s what we have to talk about: Which powers are we going to have to lawfully revoke from the Federal Government in order to lawfully achieve the real intention of the Magna Charta and 1789 Constitution: Protect our rights from abuse.
Remember, the agreement we made was we would give up our power in exchange for having our rights protected; and in return we would recognize their power in exchange for their recognizing our rights.
We now find ourselves in a position where the individuals in the existing Federal Government want it both ways: For us to stick with the agreement; still recognize their power; do nothing about the abuses; and continue to recognize the power that is being abused.
That’s not going to work.
The way forward is to figure out how to restructure the Constitution. It may involve a small change; it may require a complete rework. At this point, remember the goal here – it’s not trash anything: The Federal Government has already trashed this constitution.
Our job is simple. Put a lid on the trash can and have a discussion.
For the sake of discussion, think of the Constitution in three ways: The Constitution as a thing, as a person, a structure, and an idea.
The Constitution exists to protect people, not abuse power. When the government uses the constitution – then ignores it – to abuse, we need not relay on what offers not protection.
Article IV Section 4 guarantees a Constitutional form of government.
This government has failed.
The way forward is to remedy what is broken and lawfully destroy Constitutional systems that are flawed and abusive of the people; and lawfully revoke powers that are abused.
Keep in mind the Magna Charta and Declaration of Independence: They are lists related to problems which led to solutions.
The way forward is to be clear what is not working and move forward as did the Magna Charta and 1789 Constitution to the best solutions.
The process is simple. We simply list what is not working – the conditions that are abusing rights and abusing power – and we fix them.
Any solution that protects rights and prevents abuse of power is an option for debate. We need not restrict ourselves to the current system of checks and balances; rather, the system may have to have additional checks, and new systems.
Here are some questions to consider:
It doesn’t matter at this juncture what the answers are. The point is that Article IV Section 4 has been ignored: This nation’s leadership, and the existing system is at odds with the intent of the Constitution: The protect rights from abuse.
The way forward is to determine how a republican form of government needs to be reconceptualized so that we continue to achieve the lawful goals of the Magna Charta and 1789 Constitution: Protect rights from abusive power.
The only thing you need to accept is that this government: As it is currently designed in the Constitution, and how the individual actors are operating – has failed to achieve that goal. It not longer protects rights, and it abuses power. That is not a single problem. Rather, it is a problem with the Federal Government, Constitution, and the individuals.
The leadership in America has failed to recognize the problem, understand it, and articulate what is going on.
Moreover, the leadership has failed to sit down and think about the issues.
Your job is to know that there is a way forward. Your rights shall be protected and the abuse shall end. Know that. Never doubt it.
But know between now and then it will be challenging. You will be given non-sense – just as we have been given non-sense over the NSA issue.
But there is one thing on your side. You can sit down and think about things. And you also are not alone.
Never forget that.
I’ll talk later about the non-sense arguments being kicked around. My goal at that point will be to prepare you for the non-sense that is coming. Don’t be afraid.
Remember: The only way that you can lose is if you give up your mind. That’s the key on this. Your mind will find a solution to this.
It doesn’t matter whether your idea is “good” or “bad” – it is a solution. Hold that. Know that it is a valid solution. The key is to share it with others when you are prepared to prove that it is something you believe will work.
You don’t have to know how it will work; you don’t have to know why; nor do you have to have the answer or the details. Rather, your only job is to simply know: Any idea you have is valid for discussion. Anything.
The only option you do not have is to resort to violence. But you don’t need to. The lesson of the Magna Charta tells us that people can figure out a solution and say what has to be said. They can do so peacefully.
All you have to do is write it down. The blogosphere will find it and build on it.
Even if you believe this is non-sense, or there is nothing to that – say that. Scream it. Yell it loudly – if that is what you honestly believe. Then say that and don’t hold back. Your job is to point out why the solution will not work, why it will fail, why it is worse than what we have.
In the end, after all is said and done, we may find that the only needed change is a comma or a semicolon; or that a single word needs to be changed to something else. It may be that simple. Maybe you know which semi-colon will solve the problem, and which single word will solve this.
You’d be surprised what is possible with the smallest change.
Don’t worry whether your idea is or isn’t perfect. It may not be perfect, but it doesn’t have to be. The point is that it was an improvement over what they had in 1199.
Your job is to simply accept what is going on, and know that there is a way forward. You do not have to write anything complicated, nor does it have to make sense. Your job is merely to put your thoughts in front of you where you can see them. Your mind already has the answer – the solution is within you. All you have to do is listen to yourself.
It is that simple.
Know this: There is a way.
What I’d like to do is run through some principles with you about the nature of power, rights, and abuse.
I’m not asking you to agree or disagree with these. Merely look at this in the context of what was known in 1199 and 1773 – before the decisions were made.
When there is a problem, we have to think of a solution.
When there is an abuse we have to stop the abuse
When there is a wrong, it must be stopped
Where there is a right, it must be protected.
Where there is a problem, it must be solved
Those who abuse power may not have access to power.
Things that allow abuse must be changed to not permit the abuse.
Procedures must achieve the intent of the agreement.
An agreement must improve things
An agreement which leaves us in a worse position is not needed, we are in a better position without the agreement.
We cannot be compelled to follow procedures that violate the laws, permit abuse, or leave others in a worse position – procedures cannot lead to unlawful abuse; nor may conduct be permitted that violates the purpose of our agreement: To protect rights and prevent abuse.
No one may compel others to follow procedures when their agreement to do the same – follow procedures -- is not honored.
A counter party is someone we make an agreement with. Those who ask we assent to an agreement, but they refuse to assent to the same agreement are not reliable counter parties. We are not forced to make an agreement with someone we consider an unreliable counter party.
We are not bound to agreements with those who are in rebellion against those agreements.
An oath is a promise. It affirms what they promise to do.
This leadership has freely made oaths – and their oath is to the supremacy of the law of the land: the Constitution.
The purpose of that loyalty is to protect the document; the purpose of the document is to protect rights and prevent abuse.
One cannot have loyalty to an agreement to protected rights and abuse, but then engage in abuse or destroy rights. It is impossible.
People may be loyal to something else besides what they say they are loyal to. Some choose to say they honor their oath, but they are really loyal to silence or something else.
When people make an oath to the Constitution, they are really promising to protect rights and prevent abuse of power;
When people – by their actions – violates rights or abuse power – their action shows they have no deference to their oath or the law – nor is their conduct consistent with the intent of the Constitution: To protect rights, and prevent abuse. Rather, their loyalty is to rebellion.
Those who rebel against a promise are not to be trusted with power
Those who rebel against a promise to protect rights and prevent abuse are not to be trusted with power.
Those who have power, but trust those who violate rights or engage in abuse cannot have access to power. Their loyalty is not to protect rights or prevent abuse; their loyalty is to something else.
People who put loyalty to their friends above loyalty to their oath are not fit to be trusted.
People who put loyalty to rebellion, abuse, or destruction of rights cannot have access to power.
Those who remain silent and encourage others to do nothing about violations of the others rights are not to be trusted.
Those who give up and say there is not solution are not leaders.
Those who commit to working for a solution that will protect rights and prevent abuse are your friends – the honor the spirit of the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the 1789 Constitution: To protect rights and prevent abuse.
Those who are in rebellion against rights, and abuse power are in rebellion against their oath and their Constitution.
If someone does not wish to honor their oath, we do not have to honor their power.
If the system permits those who abuse power to stay in power, the system is flawed. There is a lawful, peaceful solution that can protect rights and prevent abuse. This is called an improvement.
If someone braches their oath -- and fails to protect rights and prevent abuse – but there are no sanctions for that failure – then the system is flawed.
We are not bound to keep agreements with those who breach our rights or abuse power; rather, we can breach the promise to recognize their power.
They may not sanction some abuses, but not others.
They cannot argue the document cannot be changed: They ignore that document.
That the document can or cannot be changed is irrelevant – they continue to abuse power.
They may say that they do not recognize or accept the advantage; yet they do not recognize the starting point: Their abuse, and failure to protect rights.
Those who will not accept the need for change are saying many things: First, the there is an abuse they deny, and a right -- that is not protected – shall not be protected as it should; and second, the power they abuse must be denied and revoked from them.
But the problem is larger than what people do or say. The problem is the system permits the abuse. We must go further than promise or not promise to violate the law – rather, we know their promises are worthless – they violate the law, then promise again to submit to reviews which they have previously ignored.
They are not serious about promises; but the system permits false promises to go unchallenged.
The way forward is to ensure that they no longer have the power to abuse. Either they are lawfully denied power; or they have the power lawfully revoked from their office.
The problem we have is the system continues to permit those who abuse to gather more power, destroy rights, and abuse others. This is at odds with the law, the statues, and the intent of the Magna Charta, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of 1789.
The system – as is currently in place – does not stop the abuse. The answer is not to listen to more promises, or negotiate more agreements. They are not reliable counter parties.
Rather, the problem is this system permits what is at odds with what is intended: Abuse of rights, and abuse of power.
The way forward – to build on 1199 and 1773 -- is to do what was done then: Know there was an alternative.
And that is what this Constitutional Convention is all about: To protect your rights and prevent abuse of power.
Some have other views. If we change the document what will happen.
The issue is not q question of should we change it or can we change it; but why are we constraining ourselves to assent to an agreement others do not recognize. That is absurd.
No one can argue they have legitimate power when that power as abused.
We need no recognize conferred power which is abuse.
We are not bound to an agreement they do not honor.
They cannot rely on something they ignore.
They lean on a scale – a balance of power -- they’ve knocked over.
The lean on a shield – a protection of rights – they’ve burnt.
They throw a spear – an abuse of power – they’ve sharpened at those they promised to protect.
For their power to be legitimate they have to consistently enforce the law, especially violations of the Constitution.
Inaction does not ratify the violation, but the illegitimacy.
Without providing a suitable remedy for breaches of their agreement.
These people want others to be bound to terms they refuse to assent to: they cannot have it both ways: If they breach the standard, the agreement does require us to continue to satisfy its terms.
For the agreement to be lawful it has to be legally binding. They have to show that they adhere to it; and there are sanctions for misconduct.
The problem is the sanctions are not in place; and the mechanism to enforce this agreement is ignored.
They are denying the needed remedies to enforce violations. They have – by their actions – destroyed the arrangement.
The document – the Constitution – still exists; the way forward is to crafter a better arrangement that does not permit the abuse, protects the rights, and has a mechanism to sanction the violations.
This system does not meet that test – this system falls short of what was desired and intended in 1199 and 1773.
They act as if they are a running jumping over hurdles – a hurdle jumper – complaining about the hurdles they’ve knocked over.
Now they want to defend the Constitution to avoid changes; yet they have already changed. The Constitution was no barrier so why recognize a barrier.
They are in rebellion against this agreement.
If you ignore all their power, they may point to the document – that they ignore – and claim the standard compels us to recognize their power.
Why should they get rely on something they ignore? It is time to lawfully throw the problem on their lap and revoke their power.
They are abusive and they do not protect our rights.
The problem is simple: They are the problem.
They have already trashed the constitution. That we put a lid on the can merely affirms we know they are in rebellion.
An agreement which is not enforced has no remedy when we revoke their power.
The agreement is an exchange of power and respect for rights.
They’ve trashed the Constitution. It is lawful to put a lid on their power.
They’ve already revoked – by their actions -- the document’s force – so we can lawfully revoke their power.
Going forward, the issue at the Constitutional convention is to discuss what is to be done to protect our rights and prevent abuse.
The way forward is to move with confidence that we will do so peacefully, non-violently, and with the same intent that was shown in 1199 and 1773: To make things better, protect our rights, and prevent abusive power.
It is that simple.
I look forward to your ideas. Spread the word!