If I were to found a nation from scratch, what would it be
like? It would look a great deal like the US Constitution. It would base
government on the underlying principle that rights come from God. People will
try to take away those rights, and they must be prevented. Government serves
that limited purpose. Government should be used to protect our lives, liberty,
and property—and the free choice of work to acquire property.
This new nation would have to be a break-off or restart of
something existing, since the world is pretty much fully named and occupied
now. The words declaring this new nation might include something very much like
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for
one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal
Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent
Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the Separation.
And then they would go on to describe why there should be
this new government in place of the old:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure
these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles,
and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.
There might follow a list of the grievances—the laws broken
by the previous government. And after that list of government’s crimes against
the people, the new nation would declare its independence. The signers would
invoke their “Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” and they would “mutually
pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
This is how it was done 240 years ago, at the birth of the
United States of America. Appeals to the law that was supposed to guarantee
their natural rights had been underway for decades. It appeared every avenue of
making things right was exhausted. At the time of the Declaration, war was
underway, and continued for several more years. Only Divine Providence could
have led to the miraculous victory. Eventually the fledgling nation grew and
prospered, and the mother country stopped trying to re-wrest control.
Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed in 1836 photo from Wikipedia |
Similarly, in 1836, a section of Mexico listed grievances,
and after exhaustive efforts to redress wrongs by appealing to the
constitutional law of the nation were attempted and rebuked by the illegitimate
dictator, independence was declared. So the Republic of Texas declared
independence. A war was already underway, and continued. But with miraculous
help from Divine Providence, the dictator-president was defeated in a brief
battle at San Jacinto, to the east of present-day Houston.
The fledgling nation struggled, and before many years asked
to become one of the United States of America. And has prospered considerably
since—far beyond anything imagined by the mother country. As a single state within
the US, it is the twelfth largest economy in the world.
So, there’s a pattern. A constitution is in place, promising
the people protection of their God-given rights. Then tyrants get power and
ignore the law. The free people then try to assert their rights through legal
appeals, through reason, through common sense. And their appeals are ignored. Then
the people—enough of them—come to see that a complete break is necessary, so
that they can form a new nation that doesn’t allow government tyranny.
The tyrant nation doesn’t want to let them go peacefully and
attempts to force submission. But, God willing, the free people win their
independence.
If the tyrant nation didn’t try get the people to submit
through brutal force, the war part of becoming independent would be eliminated.
So, if I were to have what I wanted, it would be to jettison
the tyrants from the government—and any portions of the country where the voice
of the people prefers the tyrants—and return to the Constitutional laws.
If that is not possible—as it was not with either mother
country England for the original thirteen colonies, nor with mother country
Mexico for Texas—then there would need to be a declaration of independence.
I am speaking hypothetically only. I am in favor of abiding by
the US Constitution, and I don’t think we have yet done everything possible to
exhaust the possibility of restoring the Constitution and jettisoning the
tyrants.
But, while the United States is considered “indivisible,”
that is only while the government guarantees “liberty and justice for all.” Our
list of grievances is already as long and serious as was the founders’.
I am where the US founders were between 1760 and 1776, while
John Adams was stationed in England making appeals. And I am where Stephen F.
Austin was in 1830-1835, before he came out of a dungeon where he was
imprisoned for asking that the constitution be followed.
So, hypothetically speaking, since I live in Texas, let’s
suppose all avenues of Constitutional restoration have been exhausted. And
Texas declares independence from the post-Constitutional Socialist States of
America. Let’s further suppose that, because of close proximity to the other
states, and the long years of people moving in and out among states, that the
Socialist States of America would hesitate to declare war on Texas, but would
allow a peaceful secession.
Other states could join—maybe Oklahoma, which is adjacent,
but maybe also Utah, which wouldn’t be contiguous, but might prefer joining
Texas rather than asserting its independence while surrounded by the Socialist
States. There may be others.
So, we have this new nation, formed the way other freedom
seekers have formed nations (except peacefully). And now we need to set up the
laws.
I think the abandoned US Constitution is an excellent
starting point. We would need to form a Constitutional Republic: representative
government, by the voice of the people, but with guarantees against majority—or
minority—tyranny.
Let’s keep most of it, and then add what we need to clarify
and to maintain. We keep power divided into three branches of government. But
we would spell out that all national laws must be duly legislated by the
bicameral legislative branch and none else. Let’s add that every piece of
legislation must deal with a single issue, and that it must identify the power
in the Constitution granting authority for that duty.
The executive branch would have no power to issue any such
thing as an edict, nor any executive order other than to indicate to workers
the procedures for executing the legislated laws. Executive regulatory
agencies, which currently have lawmaking, judicial, and punishment
self-appointed duties would be entirely eliminated.
As now, the third branch would be the judiciary, which deals
with judging according to the law—and has the bonus obligation of identifying
whether a duly legislated law is legal according to the ultimate law, the Constitution.
But let’s add that a two-thirds majority of the legislative branch could
overrule the judiciary. (I’ve heard that suggestion for an Article V Convention
to amend the Constitution.) This would prevent the judiciary from asserting
illicit lawmaking authority.
We should make it both easier and probable for the
legislative branch to impeach (remove from office) the president or
vice-president either for attempts at unconstitutional acts or for crimes and
corruption. And we could add that the people could also call for impeachment or
recall (in a way similar to an Article V convention), if they see that the
legislative branch isn’t responding to their appeals.
In addition, the legislative branch—as well as the people—could
impeach a justice for failure to abide by the Constitution, or for crimes and
corruption.
All would have term limits. The president would have no more
than two terms (eight years). Senators would have no more than two terms
(twelve years). Representatives would have no more than six terms (twelve
years). Justices would have no more than sixteen years. (Length of terms might
be negotiable; but this is my daydream, so I get to say.)
We would keep the Bill of Rights—maybe clarifying where
courts have tried to interfere with our God-given rights.
Religion would be encouraged, in public and private life. No
specific religion or sect would be given preferential treatment by government.
But government could do nothing to hinder the free expression—public and
private—of religion and religious people. Public prayer would be common at
civic gatherings. Such prayers can be done according to the religion of the one
praying, and those of differing religions would be expected to be respectful—as
others would be to them at other opportunities.
We would also be free to speak opinions—even unpopular
opinions—without fear of prosecution. Limits would include defamation, libel,
slander, provoking violence, pornography and lewdness. But would not include
civil discourse. And, of course, there would be no laws preventing others from
saying things a person or group disagrees with, thereby “offending” them.
People clearly have not given up the right to defend
themselves, just because they have hired a police force to help protect them.
Only criminals would be prevented from owning and using firearms for protection,
hunting, sport, or whatever use they see fit.
Families must be protected as the basic unit of society. Marriage
would be defined as it has for millennia, as a man and a woman. Other
definition powers would be retained locally. Preference would be given to
married husband and wife. Other family forms, while permitted, do not expect
government or public approval. Parents have the right and responsibility to see
to the care, education, and upbringing of their children. Only when parents drastically
fail would the law step in to protect the child.
Any power not enumerated in the Constitution would not be
granted to the federal government, but would be held by local jurisdictions or
the individual people. The local jurisdictions (states, provinces, or whatever
they are called in this new nation) would decide when to assert their rights—regardless
of what a Supreme Court says. The final arbiter should be the people, not a
national government-appointed judiciary, which clearly has a conflict of interest
in such cases.
Government’s only economic powers would include
standardizing weights and measures, standardizing money, maintaining federal
infrastructure, and preventing monopolies. A flat tax of no more than 10% could
be imposed more maintaining government purposes of border protection,
sovereignty duties, and enumerated government purposes. With government limited
to its enumerated powers, there should be little difficulty in maintaining a
balanced budget and avoiding debt—but rather than trust on this, the laws
should make it mandatory (with possible temporary exceptions, such as natural
disasters and attacks on the nation’s soil).
The new nation would secure its borders, and have an
orderly, fair, and consistent immigration and naturalization policy.
The national government would refrain from interfering where
it is not granted powers, such as in education, charity, environmental
regulation, and subsidizing particular industries or market sectors.
We need informed voters committed to maintaining the
Constitution. While there should be no financial or racial test for voters, I’m
willing to believe we could come up with a test that is part of voter
registration—something that proves the voter understands the basic form of
government, the limits of government, and who one’s current national elected
officials are. And we could have candidates sign an oath showing their
understanding of and dedication to the Constitution—with punishments including
possibly prison and fines for breaking this oath.
What I dream about is a country well up into the northern
hemisphere of the Spherical Model—where we have freedom, prosperity, and
civilization. Our original founders did everything right—except prevent us from
ignoring the law and slipping southward. But that is not a problem with their
system; that is a problem with the people.
So let's start with civilizing people, so that they naturally want--and work for--freedom and prosperity.
No comments:
Post a Comment