Writing the New Texas Constitution: Avoiding Inherent Flaws
October 24, 2009
Writing the New Texas Constitution: Avoiding Inherent Flaws
by Russell D. Longcore, russlongcore@bellsouth.net
I hear a lot these days about the constitutionality of secession. In this article, I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with the constitutionality of secession.
A constitution, or any document organizing a government, must have authority and validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then craft a new Texas constitution with authority and validity.
I believe that one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. Absent a restraining legal document, they do exactly what they wish and what they can get away with.
The US Constitution has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the Framers:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.
So what exactly is this Constitution?
I think it could only be called a "loose agreement" between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.
It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.
The old constitution’s sentiment seeks to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.
The old constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?
- xntryk1's blog
- Login or register to post comments
It all goes back to layered laws
...the difference between being a Constitutional citizen versus a statutory citizen.
The real federal government was initially established by the Constitution, but has since, through deceptive means, turned itself into a corporation, with it's own set of laws layered over the Constitution. Only a semblance of the true, legitimate federal government remains today. The layered laws only apply if you contract with them (thereby relinquishing your Constitutional rights and submitting to the corporation's state-administered privileges). The citizens to which the Constitution applies, and the federal corporation's definition of a citizen to which their "laws" apply, are two completely different citizens, not interchangeable, and this is very clearly defined in the federal corporation's own law books (see the above link). The Supreme Court has ruled to this effect several times as well.
The federal corporation operates as a scam, obfuscating the Constitution. It portrays itself as an extension of the Constitution and feigns to operate on behalf of it. It has done a very good job in this stage play - to the point that, over many generations, people have now come to accept that it is what it pretends to be, and what it used to be - a legitimate government authority. Now that it has established itself as such, it does whatever it wants, with consent of the people, without those people even knowing that they consent or have a choice. The problem in challenging the federal corporation is that they have vast enforcement resources and the unwitting consent of the masses. This makes them see themselves as legitimate and the people as a problem to be made an example of when challenged in isolated cases - just like if I tell the masses that I am the Messiah, and they accept it, as far as anyone knows that's who I am, and am likely to even start believing it myself over time.
When enough people wake up, the stage play falls apart. The federal corporation knows this. That's why they cringe at having to maintain an outward appearance and give lip service of supporting the Constitution, when, in fact, it is clear they they expend vast time and effort to circumventing it. They know that they cannot come right out and say, "Okay, people, the Constitution is dead and you play by our rules now." It is why they need us to believe that their twisted interpretations of the Constitution are correct. How many times have you heard, "Well, what does such and such in the Constitution REALLY mean?" I believe that irony will come, however. Some day (likely in the very near future) they will grow frustrated in their efforts and be forced to show their hand, waking the masses up and causing all hell to break loose.
Echelon, I've heard this argument before....
....the that Federal Government is a "corporation"....but have never seen proof of it. Some claim that it happened in "An Act to provide a government for the District of Columbia" of 1871. (find that here, half way down the page: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi...) Having studied the entire act, however, I find no evidence of such incorporation.
I think this argument has been promoted largely by Lisa Guliani (and perhaps others)----as in this article: http://www.serendipity.li.... But once again, having read the article and studied both its claims and the cited sources, I fail to find evidence to support such a conclusion.
Guliani's premise (about the Act of 1871 I mentioned above) is: "In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. "
Funny, I read the entire act and saw no such thing in it. (And I found a few other problems with her article.)
So anyway, I'm writing to ask if you could point me toward some better evidence for this claim that our government was turned into a corporation.
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Have a look at this to get started
http://www.civil-libertie...
I have several pieces of documentation that I can dig up for you. In all honestly, I have studied and collected references on this and many other matters for many years, for my own knowledge, but have only (comparatively) recently been trying to convince others of it. While I have retained all the information I've come across, I'll have to dig through and organize all of it. There is no one article or piece of legislations that says, “The united states of the union is hereby declared a corporation.” It is a cumulative, interwoven process that took place in incremental steps.
Also, have a look at UCC and how that ties into the corporation operating under the name, THE UNITED STATES.
Keep in mind as well that, again, and irrespective of whether or not the federal government is a corporation, its own laws in its own books make distinctions between Constitutional citizens and statutory citizens. It even has distinctly different definitions of “UNITED STATES”. Every federal law outlines which definition of citizen and UNITED STATES it applies to. And look at Supreme court rulings on that aspect. All of this is in the link above (first sentence of my previous post).
Echelon,
Thanks for the link.
The acrimonious language and the aggregate nature of this document make it extremely hard for use as a reference. It is very hard to determine the intentions and arguments being made.
If I had judged rightly, the theme of this document is summed up in this one-liner:
This is, of course, a distinct assertion from the previous assertion that the FEDERAL government is a corporation in itself, but for the time being, let's run with this idea that the States are "corporations of the Crown" (of England)
Isn't this easily disproved by evidence of the Declaration of Independence? Consider this passage, where their independence is made clear (see the ALLCAPS below):
Am I missing something here, or does this Declaration disprove the theory that the several states are still subject to the Crown of England?
Secondly, if I keep plowing through the website you linked, am I going to find any conversation about how the FEDERAL government is a corporation itself?
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Oh, wow
I really like the concepts being promoted on your web site - at least at first glance!
A point of interest...
...not offered as any kind of proof or point of reference – mainly just for interest (and possibly, entertainment value) – I have been to court several times on minor things like traffic tickets, civil disobedience and et cetera. I always make it a point to tell judges that I do not plead to corporate courts of contract and not one of them has ever said, “What do you mean corporate?!” In fact, I usually get an "Aw,crap!" look from them. :-)
Lysander Spooner's argument
This is Lysander Spooner's argument from "The Constitution of No Authority".
What about the OATH
elected officials take, is it not binding? Can we not sue for breach of contract?
Oooh,
I like that idea.
---
"Anyone who calls me a conservative gets a punch in the nose." - Frank Chodorov
Attorney
I know says that this man has it all wrong and doesn't know what he is talking about. Beats the heck out of me, but I know he has me confused as evidenced by my post below.
Regardless of what one may think about.....
....anarchy and minarchy....
And regardless of whether one might favor the article's ultimate suggestion that a new Texas nation should be organized like a corporation.....
It should be noted that the article has several logical fallacies. No matter how many times we repeat the phrase, "The Constitution is not a contract", it still does not change the obvious fact that it was written as the intended and agreed-upon model of the government of these United States.
We can insist all day long that, since citizens don't sign it, "it's not a contract!". But even so, it quite obviously purports to dictate which acts of government are legal, and which are not. Further, it puts forward an oath of office for elected officials, the obvious effect of which is to bolster the place of the Constitution as the Supreme Law. Oh, and did I mention that it *says* it is the supreme law of the land and that it includes no sunset provision or excludes no class of individuals?
The suggestion that *only* contracts are binding is just silly. One can be bound in jail without signing a contract. One can be permanently consigned to death---such as in a bus accident---without a contract. One can be consigned even to life (that is, be born) without a contract. One can be bound to a separation, such as in a romantic breakup, without a contract. One can be rained on, or have his house blown away in a tornado without a contract. One can be born into this country or that country without a contract. One can be born into this century or that century without a contract. One can be born to nice parents or mean parents without a contract. And it goes on and on.
The notion that nothing in all the universe is binding upon a person unless there exists a duly executed contract, willingly signed by all parties, is simply false. And the related notion that nothing SHOULD be bound upon a person unless he has willingly signed an agreement to be so bound is also false. If this is the case, life otherwise would be impracticable.
This would mean that, until they are of age to sign an agreement, babies would have to:
--be kept parentless until they could choose their own.
--not live in any place until they could choose the place.
--not have any particular physical/racial features until they could choose for themselves.
--not be born into any society or body politic or system of government (nor even an anarchy) until they can choose for themselves.
---be able to determine for themselves the age of adulthood.
Further, upon having reached adulthood and having made all the above choices (and more), now we have a person who belongs to political system X--by his own choice. But this system may not do ANYTHING without his stamp of approval on every jot of the governmental pen. If it does, he vehemently rejects System X as an intolerable violation of his sovereign rights as an individual, claiming that he has been irreparably harmed. And what are his choices now that the prevailing societal mode around him does not meet with his approval? Shall he attempt to *make* them do as he wishes? Or shall he simply move to another place? Or shall he become a detached and disgruntled hermit? And what of his political twin, who has, against all the odds, agreed with him completely on every single choice for many, many years---but who now disagrees with him on this latest innovation in the body politic? Are they now irreparably split because of this point of contention? Shall they deem it more important than their friendship? Or will they agree to still be friends in spite of their newly-developed disagreement?
Thus we see that it remains impossible for our sovereign baby to make it through life without political disappointment. Can we, in all our great ingenuity and imaginative powers, conceive of any system of government or any non-system, such as anarchy, that would please all of the people all of the time in every conceivable detail?
I think not. Disappointment and compromise will have to be a part of any form of government or non-government. This will be true as long as there are multiple persons in any given society.
Another common fallacy is the suggestion that a constitution "doesn't work" if under it, people can still do wrong. This is analogous to the dubious suggestion that a highway doesn't work because drivers sometimes drive while sleepy or intoxicated and run off the road.
And following from this fallacy is the conclusion that since "Constitutions don't work", it is foolish to have them. The fact of the matter is that the primary failure in ANY society is the *citizens*. Citizens vote for bad people. Citizens engage in criminal behavior Citizens make pollution. Citizens require maintenance. And on and on. So shall we opine that Citizens, then, are the problem and that they should be banned? Just think of what a great place we'd have if there were no citizens around, eh?
Like it or not, any society, any government, any body politic, is at the mercy of the nature of those people that comprise it. Garbage in, garbage out.
We can argue all day along about forms of government. We can argue all day long about weaknesses in the US Constitution. But one thing is undeniable: If the US citizens had insisted--even to the point of armed rebellion--- that the federal government stick to the Constitution, it would have happened.
It matters not whether a BETTER Constitution would have made for a better and free-er nation; we must first admit the obvious: that the US Constitution, as written, is a huge improvement over the governmental cartel that has evolved in the shadows of the neglect of the citizens.
And if we should write a perfect Constitution---whatever "perfect" means to YOU---whether anarchist or minarchist or statist or anything else----whether it simply says "There shall be no government" or whether it presents a model of a government of any particular type....
....If whatever YOU think is the perfect form of government-non-government were set in writing, it would still be vulnerable to the negligence of the citizens in maintaining the model. If it's an anarchist constitution, some joker's going to pop up at some point and want to invent some new governmental authority that is not in the original model. And if it's a minarchist constitution, the same thing will happen.
And the rest of the citizens will either let it happen.....or they will NOT let it happen.
Thus can we observe that the problem is primarily in the question of whether the citizens will enforce the model. And to my knowledge, no anarchist or minarchist or statist or any adherent to any other political philosophy has a solution for keeping a political model from becoming corrupted at the negligence of the participants.
The primary issue here is character. All else is secondary.
Therefore, it is a fallacious tactic to point out how all nations with constitutions are corrupt, as if the constitutions themselves are to blame for the failure of the citizens to insist on an orderly and righteous body politic.
It simply does not follow.
And this tired argument that an inherited system of government has no binding effect,... that one must personally sign on to a government before he can rightly be bound by its rules....as if it is an egregious and appalling violation of the very principles of nature herself to set up a perpetual, trans-generational government....
This, too, is fallacious.
All infants are bound by gravity, are they not? Before they even know what it is, they are bound by it. Does this violate nature? Or is it not nature itself that makes it so? And look how cruel is nature, that Baby X is born to bad parents, or that he might be born prematurely, or that he might be born in a war zone. But if we find fault with such occurrences of nature, how shall we improve the situation?
And this is the problem: *Some* anarchists, such as Molyneaux, call the political problems inherent with government a "cancer", and suggest that they can be "completely cut out" by simply having no government at all. They find fault with minarchists, saying that minarchists prefer simply to remove 90% of that cancer, having a minimal government, rather than 100% with no government at all. But the anarchist argument remains always hypothetical.
None of them present any examples of anarchies that proved to be without political problems. So they argue on the one hand that since all constitutional governments have problems, there should be no constitutional governments. But on the other hand, they can show no anarchies that are without problems. Actually, they can show no current anarchies at all---problems or not. Thus, we are expected to take their theoretical say-so as fact.
Now in response to my point here, someone will surely say "Anarchists simply do NOT claim that anarchy is problem free", and they will say that I am, therefore, setting up a "straw man". But the reason for my present argument is that this is exactly what they do about constitutional governments. They'll say, "See, there are problems with your constitutional government, therefore, all government should be abandoned completely." But they will not tolerate me if I say the same about anarchy: "See, there are problems with your anarchy, therefore, all anarchies should be abandoned completely."
The double standard is obvious......at least to me.
So it really comes down to a philosophical question of which potion one would prefer to drink. Would you prefer to take your chances with no government at all, or with a limited government? And no matter which one you choose, what will you do--if anything---to ensure that people don't mess it up?
Regardless of what any author may suggest, *both* will be plagued with the problem of low-charactered people. This is inevitable.
The US Constitution surely has some weaknesses. And after this 220-year experiment, we should be well-equipped to customize a new constitution with a view to stamping out the abuses and misinterpretations we have suffered thus far.
The reason we did NOT do this all along the way, of course, is that the character of the people was of too low a nature to maintain their own government. Even the churches have failed miserably, for if they had only succeeded in inspiring their members truly adopt the "Golden Rule", the character of the nation would have been so bolstered as to have made it impossible for MOST of the present abuses and misinterpretations to have flourished. And the Constitution would have been amended as needed all along the way.
But those same churches would fail an anarchy in quite the same way---just as would most of the people who attend them. They would not uphold the necessary respect for the rights of others---just as they do not uphold it in this present system.
Not even Josef Stalin had a working solution for this problem of a low-charactered society, for even if you shoot everyone, you have no society or economy left.
Neither does minarchy have all the answers---and this I freely admit. But we would do well to dispense with the fallacious argument that, since minarchy has problems, anarchy must therefore be preferable. If anarchy is preferable, it is demonstrably NOT because it will be free from evil deeds and violations of the rights of man.
In my view, it is counterproductive to argue, as many do with silly and vehement acrimony, that any act of government is indeed an act of "force" and that it is "at the point of a gun". The obvious-yet-false implication here, of course, is that under their preferred anarchy, NOTHING would be coerced 'at the point of a gun'. This is demonstrably false, however, as my hoodlum neighbor would have absolutely no reason to keep off my property EXCEPT for the point of my gun.
Similarly, the local Boss Hogg wannabe would have no reason not to set up a local fascist government EXCEPT for the point of my gun and the points of the guns owned by the rest of the townfolk. The fact of the matter is that the treat of violence is the ONLY think that will deter some evil people.
So once again, the arguments against the evils of government would also prove to be as applicable to anarchy.
With all these things in mind, I simply ask the rhetorical questions: Where is the honor in pushing forward with a fallacious argument? If we want to forge a new or altered society or body politic, should we not proceed with intellectual honesty?
Adamancy is no argument. Nor is anger. Nor are exaggeration and acrimony. The only components of a real argument are logic and facts. I would be most pleased if ever should come the day when we could dispense with the former in favor of the latter. It is merely a matter of choice.
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
I accept as contract
between myself and the authors of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, to be a legal and binding bilateral contract. Hows that, just sign and seal and put it in your safe deposit box. Like Micheal Badnarik says the Constitution is truly just paper, like any contract it is only what you make of it. Whether or not you utilize it. I personally accept the offer as one would any offer of something desirable. Like an oath of office done by a judge
it is unilateral unless you actually put it down with ink on paper and accept it as bilateral. Give it teeth. We live in a country of commercial contracts. Otherwise there would be no Uniform Commercial Code.
Cool, Going into collapse!!!
compare travel insurance
Going into collapse, we all know we must do something So let’s get on with the thinking, with comments!
Hey, where are all of our brilliant thinkers on this issue
I want to see some discussion of this article. It is confusing me.
Now I have read this and want to discuss it.
Assuming all he says is true, doesn't that put a new meaning to Pelosi's words, "Are you serious?"
With all he said, doesn't that also put a new meaning to Bush's comment, "The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper." I think that is what he said.
Does this also make Dr. Paul's position and our position rather bogus? Doesn't this mean also that we are seceded without any effort? All we really have to do is STOP being the puppet of the Federal Govt? Just sort of like stop shopping at WalMart and only go to Target, or whatever. Simply STOP being part of the U. S.
And what about the fact that we really, really are incorporated as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? What has our compliance with this corporation done to support that we are compliant with it and therefore a member of it-or have we inadvertantly become a member someway that has caused us to be legally binding.
What about the fact that we are trying to get rid of corporate influence on our life rather than step out of one and into another??
All these questions asked, I still think he has a good point. But if we did buy shares into the for profit corporation, shouldn't the shares be limited so that no one person is able to have too much influence??
Whatever all the answers are, I want to secede NOW. RIGHT NOW. The hour is late.
Oh, I'm bumpin' this!!!!
I love your relevancy, xntryk1. You are on the top of my poster list! Always have been, but you just gained new heights with this post. Besides that, you are my computer guru.
Ha! Wish you could bump blog posts...
...but they just kinda stay where they are, no matter how many people comment on them (or not :-)). As for the computer, always happy to help - if I can...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.” ...credited to Al Haig, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State.
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Ron Paul = Red Pill