The Aquarian Agrarian: Abolition

Showing posts with label Abolition. Show all posts

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Abolishing the Federal Government and the Presidency in Seventeen Easy Steps

Given the recent scandals in Washington, D.C. regarding Russian and Ukrainian spying and business deals, election sabotage and interference, and association of presidents with known child sex traffickers, it is becoming obvious to more and more Americans that the current federal government with which we are currently burdened, has become unbearably corrupt, as well as financially and morally bankrupt.

The solution to these problems, in my opinion, must be to abolish the federal government, the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Additionally - possibly - to call for a new national government, if reassurances can be made that such a government would be tolerable). But most importantly, to incarcerate (and, if necessary, charge with treason and/or sedition) any politicians or federal officials whom have engaged in unlawful or immoral actions involving representatives of foreign governments.

If I were asked what federal officials, and/or the president, could and should do, to abolish the federal government as soon as possible, then my advice would be what follows below.

I would recommend that the president take as many of these sixteen steps as possible - and as quickly as possible, and in the order shown below - in order to achieve abolition of the United States federal Government as swiftly, successfully, and peaceably as possible.

This list should be viewed as a set of stages.
The purpose of the first two steps (Phase One) is to communicate clearly to the people why the federal government needs to be abolished. This will help ensure that the president who promises to abolish the government, has the people's trust and support when inaugurated.
The remainder of the steps should be taken by the president as soon as possible following inauguration. Those steps include the first phase following inauguration (Phase Two). In Phase Two, the president makes sure that foreign nations recognize that the president was elected lawfully, in order to avoid an international incident, and ensure the stability of the new administration while it attempts to abolish the federal government (as the people will want it to do).
In Phase Three, the president gives Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch officials under the president's control, one last chance (each) to cease cooperating with the continued creation and enforcement of widely unpopular and unconstitutional laws. Many of these cannot even rightfully be called laws, because most unconstitutional acts of Congress, are unconstitutional because they disregard limitations which were put in the Constitution with the specific intent of ensuring that the states and the people retained a significant and meaningful measure of the right to govern themselves (as opposed to being governed by a central authority).
In Phase Four, the president takes all steps necessary to abolish the entire federal government (with the exception of the offices of the president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation), and issues declarations and public statements explaining and confirming these moves.
In Phase Five (providing that most or all of steps 7 through 10 were successful), the president declares that efforts to abolish the federal government were successful, and makes statements and invitations which recognize the sovereignty and independence of the fifty states as separate countries, each with their own diplomatic authorities.
In Phase Six (after the world has recognized the freedom of each state), the president calls for the consideration of a new national or federal government and a new constitutional convention, weighs in on this matter, fires all diplomats still employed federally, and vacates the office of the presidency (leaving nobody to succeed).

The Seventeen Steps:

Phase One (Before Inauguration):

Step 1: Communicate, and Campaign on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

Step 2: Communicate the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):
Step 3: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):

Step 4: Urge Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

Step 5: File Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

Step 6: Nullify Executive Orders

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):
Step 7: Revoke the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

Step 8: Order the Congress to Disband

Step 9: Charge Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason
Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

Step 11: Order the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):

Step 12: Declare the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

Step 13: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

Step 14: Insist Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):

Step 15: Call for a Constitutional Convention
Step 16: Fire All Federal Diplomats

Step 17: Vacate the Presidency

Phase One (Before Inauguration):

Step 1: Communicating, and Campaigning on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

Make it clear that the presidential candidate, and the congressional and senatorial candidates, are running with the intent to abolish the positions for which they're running.

It should be emphasized that various notable figures in pop culture have suggested doing without government (such as Kid Rock, who said something to the effect of "What if we decided to have no government, but everybody promised to be cool?"; and Alec Baldwin, who said, while portraying Donald Trump on N.B.C.'s Saturday Night Live, "Maybe it's time we take a break from having a president for about a year."). Forces in favor of abolishing the federal government should make it clear that they could not agree more.

Attempt to make abolishing he federal government; incarceration of dozens of high ranking federal officials; and full investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, everyone listed in Epstein's black book of contacts, Ghislaine Maxwell, Joe and Hunter Biden, John Podesta and James Alefantis (etc.); into mainstream policies and platform planks (if possible, resulting in multiple parties adopting such positions).

Additionally, for any officials running for federal positions having promised to work to abolish the federal government, it should be clear that they intend to return the power of attorney back to the people from which they have been borrowing it (through political representation).

Moreover, campaigns to abolish the federal government should explain that repealing laws, and dismantling and abolishing entire departments, will drastically reduce not only government costs, but also the number of armed government law enforcement officials, as well as the number of violent attacks committed by government agents against civilians.

Step 2: Communicating the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

In order to justify, and provide legal context and rationale for the legality of, abolishing the U.S. federal Government, campaigns to abolish the federal government should cite the fact that the Declaration of Independence recognized the people's pre-existing right to alter or abolish our government if it becomes destructive of the liberties which it declared an intent to preserve.
Additionally, at least six state constitutions recognize a right to reform, alter, or abolish government; -and many nations acknowledge the right to revolution and/or the right to rebel - so those facts should not go ignored in the president's statements.

[Note: The Supreme Court, historically, has not considered the Declaration of Independence to be organic law, and thus the court does not consider the Declaration to be part of the U.S. Code. However, Congress traditionally has recognized the Declaration of Independence as organic law. This information may be relevant in order to pursue a successful legal defense for the case in favor of abolishing the government.]

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):

Step 3: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

[Note: Step 3, and subsequent steps, should all be taken on January 20th, in the afternoon and evening immediately after the inauguration of the president, and within the first 24 or 48 hours of the inauguration.]

The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts whether they will affirm that the election of the president was carried out duly and legally.

This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that a presidential candidate has been elected who promised to abolish the position of president as well as the national government of the United States. This step will also help ensure that foreign nations will interact with the states in good faith, following the next several steps which the president should take to abolish the government.

Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):

Step 4: Urging Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

The president should strongly urge Congress to convene for a brief, one-time, emergency legislative session, to give Congress one last chance to amend the Constitution in a meaningful way.
While doing this, the president should cite the need to review the existing set of national emergencies (of which there are dozens and dozens, and probably too many); and the need to declare national emergencies regarding civil liberties, due process, government transparency, and corruption.
The president should do this, while specifically demanding that the members of Congress authorize their own arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, and also demanding that Congress refrain from interfering with any efforts by the states to hold a constitutional convention.
The president should accomplish this by insisting that Congress and the states work together to immediately pass an amendment which would amend (and repeal a portion of) Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should replacing that clause with the following language: "The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place."
The president should additionally insist that the convention of states consider amendments which would repeal the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and revert to a confederation, and/or abolish the office of the presidency (by striking Article II, Section 1).
In the (extremely likely) event that Congress were to refuse to accept the president's insistence that this emergency legislation be considered (i.e., proposals to allow the arrest of congressmen for misdemeanors, revert to a confederation, and abolish the presidency), then the president should proceed with any and all plans to order the Congress to disband, since it will have signaled that it is not willing to acknowledge the right to hold a constitutional convention as acknowledged in Article V of the Constitution.

Step 5: Filing Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

The president and the new administration should file lawsuits intended to make it impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid promptly weighing in on three key constitutional issues, the outcome of which rulings could have major impacts, potentially including the abolition of the federal government as we know it.

These lawsuits include suits which will pressure the Supreme Court to issue rulings:

1) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that Amendment XVI (income tax) was passed unlawfully;

2) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was passed as Amendment XIII, but has been disregarded despite having been lawfully passed by Congress but not signed by the president; and

3) whether there is a difference between "the Constitution of the United States" and "the Constitution for the United States", and additionally, within that controversy, whether the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 violates the provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that the federal government exercise exclusive jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia itself, and limited to 100 square miles ("ten miles, squared").

A ruling on the first issue could have the result of repealing and abolishing the income tax, which would defund the federal government by depriving the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) from collecting approximately half of the total amount of receipts from which the federal government derives its revenue. With its funding halved, the federal government will struggle to fund its enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.

A ruling on the second issue could help prohibit federal officials - especially judges and congressmen - from receiving any form of foreign honors, titles, or privileges whatsoever. If the language in the Titles of Nobility Amendment becomes law, then federal judges will likely lose much or all of their power to issue orders which affect the states and localities.

A ruling on the third issue will help determine whether the federal government is, in a strict legal sense, exercising exclusive jurisdiction anywhere besides the District of Columbia (for example, on federally managed and owned lands, and on U.S. military bases overseas, and in our various overseas territories and possessions, etc.).
The president should additionally insist that the Supreme Court issue a ruling regarding whether Congress's refusal to allow an emergency convention to amend the Constitution (as described in Step 4).

If the Supreme Court refuses to take any of these cases, then the president should call for the court to be abolished. If the justices of the Supreme Court refuse to accept their dismissal and the court's abolition, then the president should call for their arrest. These arrests could be performed by branches of the national guard, officials representing the states or community governments, and/or volunteer citizen militia wishing to assist in a citizens' arrests.

Step 6: Nullifying Executive Orders

The president should undertake all efforts possible to nullify all past executive orders, presidential signing statements, and line-item vetoes which remain active and have no constitutional merit. These may include executive orders which the president believes to be destructive of civil liberties, or destructive to the rights of the people to be governed in a decentralized fashion.

The president may need to use both active and passive methods in order to accomplish this. Likely, some executive orders (etc.) can be ignored through the president refusing to issue orders to enforce them, while others may have to be accomplished through presidential actions. These may include new executive orders which invalidate old executive orders.

Whatever the case, the presidential candidate who intends to abolish the federal government should be prepared to undertake whatever legal means necessary to rescind, or otherwise invalidate, the executive orders which still exist and have been destructive to freedom or empowering of tyranny.

These include, but are not limited to, executive orders which: 1) deprive accused people of the right to a trial; 2) establish and maintain secret prisons; 3) instruct officials to deprive detainees and incarcerated migrants of their right to a basic standard of health and safety while in custody; and 4) provide for "continuity of government" programs and exercises which make it difficult to abolish the federal government.

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):

Step 7: Revoking the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

On the president's first day in office, the president and/or the new administration should insist upon the president's right to tell all armed bureaucrats working for the federal government to surrender their badges and to return or lay down any and all arms issued to them by the federal government.

The rationale for this should be that the president has the right, as the chief executive of the nation's armed forces, to issue orders requiring the firing and disarmament of any and all law enforcement officials continuing to claim to work for the federal government, and attempting to enforce federal laws (which will, as provided in Step 4, have been repealed en masse just prior to Step 5).

Step 8: Ordering the Congress to Disband

The president should make an appeal to the people, explaining that the president would not be in the White House unless the people who elected that candidate truly wanted the candidate to abolish the federal government, and truly believed that the candidate would do so if given the opportunity.

The president should use these facts to justify and explain the president's next step: an order for the United States Congress - i.e., the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives - to disband. If the Senators and Representatives just elected, refuse their dismissal, then state or community officials (or private citizens) should remove them from the chambers of Congress, and take them into custody.

Step 9: Charging Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason

On January 20th, the president should be prepared with orders to indict all federal officials (justices, elected officials, law enforcement officers, etc.) who continue to serve under the guise and authority of the federal government, and who continue to attempt to enforce federal law.

The list of this set of federal officials should be made up primarily of the following: 1) elected and appointed officials who abused their oaths of office by engaging in corrupt foreign business deals and/or election collusion; 2) justices, senators, and congresspersons who refused to vacate their offices; and 3) potentially dangerous federal law enforcement officials, intent on continuing to enforce federal law after the authority to do so is rescinded, whom are not likely to give up their arms without a fight.

Most importantly, the president should be prepared to charge the first set of officials enumerated above, with sedition and/or treason (whichever is appropriate).

Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

The president should ask for the resignation of the running mate who was elected along with the president, and/or undertake any and all peaceable measures possible which could prevent the vice-president-elect from taking an oath of office.
The president should also refuse to cooperate with any demands to hire a chief of staff, and also with demands to nominate cabinet members. The president should explain that at least half of those cabinet members would only end up heading federal departments which lack proper constitutional authorization (so most of what they do is unlawful).
The president should dismiss the vice-president-elect, and refuse to hire a chief of staff and nominate a cabinet, in order to prevent those persons from being arrested for cooperating with the federal government (which they would not deserve, having been elected specifically in order to abolish the federal government).

Step 11: Ordering the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

The president should issue an order which will prohibit, and provide punishment of, all state and local officials, and all citizens of the states, who continue to cooperate with officials claiming to work under the auspices of anything described as a federal or national government of or for the United States.

If circumstances merit and necessitate it, then the president should be prepared to charge any such "federal officials" - or persons aiding and abetting them - with treason (and/or sedition) against the people and the states.
The president should issue just under two hundred exemptions, however. The president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation, should be retained, until such time as the president would be prepared to relinquish them from the federal employment rolls. This will be necessary in order to ensure that the president completes the mission to abolish the federal government, and in order to ensure that foreign nations will accept the sovereignty of each American state after that mission is over.

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):

Step 12: Declaring the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

The president should declare intent to re-affirm the only provision of the 1789 Treaty of Paris which is left standing; i.e., the provision which recognizes that the states are, and of right should be free to behave as, "free, sovereign, and independent" states.

While issuing this declaration, the president should explain that: 1) without recognizing the freedom and sovereignty and independence of each U.S. state, they cannot rightfully be called "states"; and 2) the federal government is, legally speaking, foreign to the states, and to the people.

The president should predicate the validity of the second point, on the facts that the federal government has alienated the people, the federal government has treated the people as strangers and aliens in their own lands (as if they had no rights), and the federal government has transported accused people to far-off secret prisons for indeterminate lengths of time and without trial (which was one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, the Declaration of Independence was drafted in the first place). The president should cite Grievance 8 and Grievance 9, of the Declaration, in order to explain and justify the decision to declare the states' and the people's independence from federal and national government.

This declaration by the president should be made publicly, and should be billed as "the Second Declaration of Independence" of the United - and fully sovereign - States of America.

Step 13: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts to affirm that they will not undertake any actions resisting or challenging the president's orders to dissolve and abolish national government for the United States.

This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that the national government is unstable or could soon disappear (because the federal government's abolition is likely to have far-reaching and grave effects on the state of world peace and world finance, as well as on the state of society and the freedom revolution at home).

Diplomats from the United Kingdom, in particular, should be invited to re-affirm what it affirmed in 1789 when that nation recognized that America was no longer under British control. Namely, that - as provided in the 1789 Treaty of Paris - the American states remain free, independent, and sovereign.

This step may, and hopefully will, have the effect of insuring against attempts from within the remnants of the federal government, to either: 1) engage in collusion with foreign governments abroad; 2) challenge or depose the president, or to create another national government; or 3) invade with a foreign army, thus occupying the states with a national government (albeit a foreign one).

Step 14: Insisting Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

Immediately upon completing the tasks of ordering the abolition of the federal government, the president should point to the fact of widespread approval of that move, to make it clear that the authority to engage in diplomacy and trade, is now vested in the states themselves, or in the people.

Next, the president should communicate with all fifty state governors, and insist that those states have the right to join the United Nations, to participate in its programs independently, and to participate in international diplomatic and trade deals without consulting any other governmental body. The president should also insist that each governor extend invitations for foreign diplomats to meet in their states' capitals, to acknowledge the sovereignty of each state, separately and in person.

If necessary, the president should defend this insistence upon full state sovereignty, by citing the fact that even the Soviet Union (with its storied reputation for repression of both civil liberties and democracy) allowed the Ukraine and Belarus to be members of the United Nations long before the Soviet Union was finished being dismantled.

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):

Step 15: Calling for a Constitutional Convention

[Note: This step should only be taken if, and after, it has become abundantly clear that there no longer remain any realistic challenges to the new administration's authority, nor to the federal government's abolition, nor to the states' total sovereignty and independence.]

The president should call for a second constitutional convention of states. As provided in Article V, no amendment shall be considered which could potentially violate the provisions of Article I, Section 9 as amended.

In defending the move to call for a constitutional convention, without citing the Constitution's authority, the president should cite the fact that Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which authorized constitutional convention) remained law before the president's inauguration, but was never taken seriously by Congress or enough state governors to make such a convention happen. This made reforming the federal government all but impossible, and made revolution or abolition inevitable.

The president should call for a constitutional convention of states, to determine whether to create a new national or federal government. However, the president should insist that, if such a government is created, then it should only happen on the condition that the Bill of Rights is strengthened and clarified (or, at the very least, left alone).

[Note: In my opinion, Amendments II, V, IX, and X could benefit the most from clarifying and modernizing language, through better encapsulating the spirit of liberty which informed the original intentions and original meanings of those amendments.]

If a new national or federal government is formed as the result of these proceedings, then the most important matters which should be considered in the creation of new amendments, should revolve around: 1) what the structure of the new government should be, and in that issue, how to safeguard civil liberties and severely and explicitly limit the government's powers (which would hopefully include language resembling the suggested amendment outlined in Step 4); 2) how to have free, fair, and open elections; and 3) which measures to adopt in order to ensure the financial security of the new government (and the national economy in general).

Step 16. Firing All Federal Diplomats

The president should fire all diplomats still employed by the federal government (which shall have been retained this long solely for the purposes of ensuring international recognition of the legitimacy of the new administration).

Step 17: Resigning the Presidency and Vacating the Oval Office

Before the states and the people decide whether to convene for a constitutional convention, the president should announce resignation from the office of the President of the United States - and announce an intent that the office of the presidency be vacated forever, from this day forward (hopefully January 21st) - in a public address which explains the reasons for doing so.
That address should include the president's thoughts regarding whether a constitutional convention should take place, and whether there is a justification for any national or federal government to exist again in the territory once occupied by the United States federal Government.
The president should also communicate an opinion about whether positions like the presidency, the chief executive, and the unitary executive, ought to exist or be trusted ever again. This will help make it clear to the people that the president truly is about to become the last president (or, at least, the last president under this current constitution) upon the resignation that follows this address.
If this public address is not televised live, then it should be either pre-recorded and broadcasted, or else a statement to the same effect should be sent to members of the press and officials representing the fifty states.
If this public address is broadcast live, then the president should be shown signing a letter of resignation live on television, and then, the president should insist that everyone present in the Oval Office, leave the room immediately (i.e., the president and any remaining members of the president's retinue, members of the press, and/or any state governors or foreign diplomats invited and present for the resignation).

Those interested in these topics may additionally wish to read my 2011 article "The Spooner Amendment", a suggested list of reforms to the U.S. Constitution. That article is available at the following address:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

Based on Notes Taken on October 17th, 2019
Written on October 25th and 31st, 2019

Published on October 31st, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"Fourteen Recommendations Regarding How to Abolish
the Federal Government and the Presidency"

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Spooner Amendment

The following is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. Its purpose is to put into practice principles which were endorsed by Reconstruction-era author Lysander Spooner in his 1867 essay “No Treason”.

Section 1.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, according to the whole numbers of citizens in each State.

Section 2.

All elections to federal, state, county, and municipal public offices shall be conducted through open ballot voting, wherein the evidence of the candidate or candidates for whom each participant in an election voted is open to public scrutiny.

Section 3.

The Senators and Representatives, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, and the Oaths and Affirmations before mentioned shall be written, signed, sealed, delivered to, and witnessed and acknowledged by the persons who elected them, or their servants, attorneys, or Representatives, under penalty of forfeiture of salary, removal from office, and revocation of citizenship of public officers, and of revocation of citizenship of voting citizens.

Section 4.

For having been party to the proceedings of elections, or to assumptions to and execution of the duties of public office, which shall have occurred prior to the enactment of this legislation, and in a manner which is inconsistent with the processes required by Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this legislation, no person shall be held to answer to a charge of any criminal or civil offense.

Section 5.

The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place.

Section 6.

The Congress shall make no law prohibiting any person from questioning, contesting, disputing, or doubting the validity of the public debt of the United States.

Section 7.

The several States may enter into any Confederation.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In defense of Section 2 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Lysander Spooner wrote the following on the subject of voting:

"No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly and in a way to make him personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them...

"[T]he general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of [secret ballot] voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and... murder, the rest of the people...

"[Secret ballot] voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily. So far, therefore, as [secret ballot] voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all."

“On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which the pretended agents of the people take [‘]to support the Constitution,[’] are of no validity or obligation… [because] …they are given to nobody. There is no privity (as the lawyers say) – that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement – between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.

“…[S]ay that, among… persons, in whose presence the oath was taken, there were [a given number of persons], who had secretly – by secret ballot, and in a way to avoid making themselves individually known to me, or to the remainder of the [people] – designated me as their agent to rule, control, plunder, and, if need be, murder these… people.

“The fact that they had designated me secretly, and in a manner to prevent my knowing them individually, prevents all privity between them and me; and consequently makes it impossible that there can be any contract, or pledge of faith, on my part towards them; for it is impossible that I can pledge my faith, in any legal sense, to a man whom I neither know, nor have any means of knowing, individually.”

Spooner criticizes secret-ballot voting by invoking the term “privity” (meaning a legally-recognized relation between two parties, such as that of service) as preferable to and distinct from “privacy” (meaning the state or condition of being free from public attention).

It is precisely this freedom from public attention which is embodied in the practice of secret-ballot voting that makes that system of voting antithetical to the idea that government processes should be open to the public, and to its scrutiny.

This is because any defense of the secret-ballot system which invokes the necessity of defending individual “privacy” rather than “privity” undermines the openness of the legitimate, voluntary social contract, whereby people make themselves individually known to one another, and the decisions which they make in the public sphere known to one another (or, at least, potentially so).

In topics pertaining to the administration of public policy (particularly in regards to elections whereby authority is delegated), the term “privacy” is, practically, synonymous with the term “secrecy”, as has been (in some cases) the term “independence”.

It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 2 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that "[a]ll elections to federal, state, county, and municipal public offices shall be conducted through open ballot voting, wherein the evidence of the candidate or candidates for whom each participant in an election voted is open to public scrutiny”, would – as Spooner prescribed – provide for the furnishment of legal evidence that certain individuals voluntarily support the Constitution, and that it would also make individuals personally responsible for the acts of their agents, so long as such agents act within the limits of the power delegated to them.

In defense of Section 3 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Spooner wrote the following on the subject of contracts:

"...[S]ince 1677 – there has been on the statute book of England, and the same, in substance, if not precisely in letter, has been re-enacted, and is now in force, in nearly or quite all the States of this Union, a statute, the general object of which is to declare that no action shall be brought to enforce contracts of the more important class, unless they are put in writing, and signed by the parties to be held chargeable upon them.

"...Furthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country, as well as in England, requires that a large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc., shall not only be written and signed, but also sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged.

"...[W]e are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which, inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general principles of law and reason – such principles as we are all governed by in regard to other contracts – the merest waste of paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind."

The statute to which Spooner referred was An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries (29 Chas. 2 c. 3), a 1677 Act of the Parliament of England. The act provides that contracts of surety (also called guarantee) for another’s debt are unenforceable unless evidenced in writing.

It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 3 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that “[t]he Senators and Representatives, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, and the Oaths and Affirmations before mentioned shall be written, signed, sealed, delivered to, and witnessed and acknowledged by the persons who elected them, or their servants, attorneys, or Representatives, under penalty of forfeiture of salary, removal from office, and revocation of citizenship of public officers, and of revocation of citizenship of voting citizens”, would – as Spooner prescribed – provide for the furnishment of authentic evidence that a given individual has voluntarily delegated to a given public official the authority to act as his or her agent and representative.

The effect of Section 3 of my proposed legislation would be to amend Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “[T]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

In defense of Section 1 of my proposed legislation:

To enact and enforce Sections 2 and 3 of this bill but not Section 1 would eventually cause some problems with regards to the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives according to the populations of the respective states.

This is because population-based political apportionment is based on the principle that political liberties and responsibilities shall be distributed according to the number of persons living within the territory over which a given government claims and exercises jurisdiction, rather than according to the number of persons whom actually voluntarily submit to such jurisdiction (and – at that – in a way that is both authentic and verifiable).

It is because population-based political apportionment is based on the assumption that it is desirable that the federal government distribute political freedoms based on the number of people available to be coerced within a given territory rather than based on the number of people actually volunteering to part with certain freedoms and liberties in exchange for the privilege to participate in the government of themselves and of their consenting compatriots.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states that "[r]epresentatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Section 2 of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution – which amended the aforementioned clause – states that "[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Being that to have either of these two laws in place while enforcing Sections 2 and 3 of my proposed legislation would cause different percentages of populations living within the territories in which governments claim and exercise jurisdiction to voluntarily consent to participate in the American governmental system operating under the authority of the Constitution, the outcome of this would be that the relative number of consenting individuals represented by the various members of the United States House of Representatives would eventually tend to vary by a wide margin – that is, to an even further degree than that to which is does currently – because some people living within the jurisdictional territorial boundaries of the United States – and of its subsidiary governments – would choose to not subject themselves to their laws.

It is for these reasons that I have included in my proposed legislation the mandate that “[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, according to the whole numbers of citizens in each State”; i.e., citizens who are citizens because they consent to the Constitution in a manner that is voluntary, authentic, and verifiable, rather than because they begrudgingly, inauthentically, and unverifiably became citizens for the purpose of retaliating in a civil and civilized manner against the perpetrators of some secretive, aggressive act of initiatory coercion and / or expropriation.

In defense of Section 5 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Spooner wrote the following on the subject of the questioning of federal public officials:

"...[B]y the Constitution... the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who... shall never be [‘]questioned[‘] as to any disposal they make of them.

"...Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, '[f]or any speech or debate [or vote,] in either house, they [the senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.[']... this provision protects them from all responsibilities for the laws they make.

"...The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.

"Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?... they shall never be [']questioned,[']... for violating their oaths... The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property... The two are identical... they own us as property... they are our masters, their will is our law."

It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 5 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that “[t]he Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place” – which would amend Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and also invalidate a portion of it – would, as Spooner prescribed, permit the senators and representatives to be questioned; which is to say that – just as the senators and representatives may withhold the salaries of, impeach, and remove from office judicial and executive officers – senators and representatives would be subject to the same type of "questioning" which I have just described, but by their electors – i.e., the people who voted in the elections which they won – rather than by the executive and judicial branches of government.

Additionally, I would note that such "questioning" of senators and representatives could take place immediately upon refusal of any such public official to sign a written oath in support of the Constitution, and – in pursuance of Section 3 of my proposed legislation – such “questioning” would be administered in the form of “forfeiture of salary, removal from office, and revocation of citizenship” of the offending public officer.

In defense of Section 6 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Spooner wrote the following on the subjects of taxation and debt:

"...[T]axation is made compulsory on all[;] whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt so as to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone…

“To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used against his injury... is... no proof at all [that he supports the Constitution].

"On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted in the name of [']the United States,['] or of [']the people of the United States,['] are of no validity. It is utterly absurd to pretend that debts... are binding upon... millions of people, when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence – such as would be required to prove a private debt – that can be produced against any one of them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent.

"...[T]here is in existence no such firm, corporation, or association as [']the United States,['] or [']the people of the United States,['] formed by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, and having corporate property with which to pay these debts... this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the real borrowers of this money... do not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders."

The full text of the first sentence of Section 4 of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution reads, "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The fragment of that sentence to which I aim to draw attention is, "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned."

Not only did Spooner point out that, when a person is taxed against his or her will, a subsequent act of consent by that person to the so-called authority which levied the tax does not validate or confirm that person's consent retroactively; but Spooner also makes it clear that, when such a person consents to the authority of such agencies, that consent is not even legitimate because no authentic written evidence can be produced that such an act of consensual delegation of authority ever took place.

To reiterate and summarize, all government proceedings have, thus far, occurred without authentic, verifiable, written proof of consent to delegate authority, the payment of such debt is always contingent upon the future power and ability of governments to coercively extract payments from persons.

It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 6 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that “[t]he Congress shall make no law prohibiting any person from questioning, contesting, disputing, or doubting the validity of the public debt of the United States”, would ensure that no person shall be punished for questioning the validity of the public debt of the federal government.

In defense of Section 7 of my proposed legislation:

Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states, “[t]reason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

The statutory Act of April 30^th, 1790 states, “…[i]f any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.”

About the Act of April 30^th, 1790, Spooner wrote, “[t]he whole pith of the act lies in the words, [‘]persons owing allegiance to the United States,[’]… [i]t does not attempt to show or declare who does [‘]owe allegiance to the United States;[’] although those who passed the act… wished others to think, that allegiance was to be presumed… against all born in this country… As the Constitution professes to rest wholly on consent, no one can owe allegiance, service, obedience, or any other duty to it, or to the government created by it, except with his own consent.”

This is what Spooner intended to imply in choosing the title of his essay, which is that no act of treason was committed in the action of the Confederate States in attempting to dissolve the political bands which had once connected them to the Union.

The fact that the Confederate States no longer felt that the manner in which the Union interacted with them upheld the Constitution – and their revolt against the Union – embodies the revocation of consent which is implicit in the notion of legitimate delegation of authority; namely, that the administration of all governance is predicated upon the existence of consent of the governed to continue to be governed.

The significance of this is that any and all aggression which was committed against citizens of Confederate states whom did not own slaves and / or participate in the legalistic sanctioning of their continued slavery is deemed to have been initiatory aggression – and therefore immoral, unjust, and in violation of the non-coercion principle – while violence against slave-owners and those who utilized the rule of law to officially sanction the propagation of slavery is deemed to have been moral, just, and an appropriate exercise of (what would incorrectly be described as) force.

It is for these reasons that I have included in my proposed legislation the provision that “[t]he several States may enter into any Confederation” because Lysander Spooner’s primary reason for writing “No Treason” was to argue against slavery – and in favor of the right of the Union to demand that the Confederacy emancipate the slaves – while defending the Confederate States’ rights to secede from the Union, as an act of legitimate revocation of consent to be governed by a Constitution which was illegitimate to begin with.

The effect of the enactment and enforcement of Section 7 of my proposed legislation would be the invalidation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads (in part), “[n]o State shall enter into any… Confederation…”.

In defense of Section 4 of my proposed legislation:

I have included in this bill the mandate that “[f]or having been party to the proceedings of elections, or to assumptions to and execution of the duties of public office, which shall have occurred prior to the enactment of this legislation, and in a manner which is inconsistent with the processes required by… this legislation, no person shall be held to answer to a charge of any criminal or civil offense” because the election of the public officials who may vote on my proposed legislation – in addition to the actual voting on the bill itself – as well as the potential ratification and signing-into-law of the bill (due to there being a total lack of written evidence that any such public officials had ever been properly delegated the authority of the persons who they claim to represent) shall not have been legitimate in the first place, given the secret-ballot voting system which has been (evidently, de-facto) in place since the Constitution was written, as well as the aggressive actions which were and have been required to implement it, its subsequent amendments, and the statutes whose legitimacy is predicated upon it.

The unfortunate significance of this concession is that my proposed legislation itself – even once it has become “law” – would never be authentic, or, indeed, truly legitimate. I also concede that the moral and legal implications of Section 4 are monstruously hypocritical and duplicitous, and I would even go so far as to conjecture that it would be vehemently criticized, opposed, disregarded, neglected, and / or ignored by Lysander Spooner himself, as well as by the vast majority of his supporters (at least those who understand contract law, and, thus, would properly interpret my proposed legislation as an apologia for Statism and for its institutions and processes).

However – being that the very enactment and enforcement of the Constitution represented an aggressive act of initiatory force (i.e., violence) against its supposed subjects – were public officials who were to assume and execute the functions of public office to be charged, prosecuted, and punished for the offense of doing so illegitimately, the only appropriate crime with which they would be charged would be treason – which is traditionally punishable by death – and I believe that the execution of some half-a-million elected U.S. government officials and another twenty million appointed and hired civil employees would constitute a great loss of civic and governmental procedural knowledge for our society.

Additionally – in regards to the some hundred and thirty million people who vote in the United States every year – it would be preposterous to argue that three out of every seven Americans should be arrested, charged with treason, prosecuted, and executed for participating in a process which they believe to be legitimate, but which does not conform to standards set by a British legal document which is nearly a hundred years older than is their government itself, and which is relatively obscure by the standards of the modern civic and political culture of the United States.

Although it may ultimately prove futile to do so, I would defend this assertion by once again quoting Spooner himself: “…a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist… [h]e sees… that, if he will but use the ballot… he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave… a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being… until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.”

In summary, I would use this quote to defend the notion that voters and public officials should not be held responsible for their participation in the governmental system – as it stands right now – due to the fact that each of them was compelled to do so, that compulsion having been in the guises of liberty, voluntarism, and consent.

While I can only hope that this defense of my proposed legislation will be sufficiently satisfactory to the citizens of the United States in general, and the followers of Lysander Spooner especially, I believe that unless and until this bill is passed, enacted, and enforced, the legitimacy of American government, the transparency, responsibility and accountability of the action of its agencies and its officers, and the liberty of its subjects, will remain a usurpative delusion which flies in the face of common law, contract law, and the freedom of association.

SUMMARY

SECTION 1

Require the apportionment of the House of Representatives by the number of citizens (not denizens) in each State

[Amending Section 2 of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution;

which itself amended Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 2

Permit the public scrutiny of the evidence of voting results for elections of candidates in all jurisdictions.

SECTION 3

Require that the oaths of public officials to support the Constitution be written, signed, sealed, delivered, witnesses, and acknowledged

[Extrapolating the contract-law-relevant English Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries as applicable to U.S. common law; amending Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 4

Immunize public officials from criminal and civil prosecution for having governed without written evidence of having been elected and having signed an oath to support the Constitution.

SECTION 5

Completely revoke U.S. Senators’ and U.S. Representatives’ privilege from arrest

[Amending Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 6

Legalize the questioning of the validity of the public debt

[Invalidating Section 4 of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 7

Permit the States to enter into confederations

[Invalidating a portion of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 8

Empower the Congress to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.

For more entries on elections and campaign finance, please visit: