After years of considering all the available options to stopping the onslaught of new laws and policies that will render our founding legal principles obsolete, I've come full circle back to the referendum and initiative process.
It was always my position that if my countrymen voted to eliminate the US Constitution and replace it with a Communitarian system, that I would stop fighting it. IF this is what the majority of Americans want as their new government, then I have no leg to stand upon in my resistance. But... and this is the hugest but... nobody I know has had the opportunity to consider the actual terms for the change, or the legal position.
As the mandate for global sustainable development does not only affect the United States, I'm thinkng the referendum to repeal LA21 and all international trade agreements that endanger local humans should be an inclusive, global document.
The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California looks like a good starting place to study the process, but their information may not be all that great because they include the Netherlands in their list of the "five democracies" that have never had a national referendum, and my ACL studies show that the Dutch rejected the EU Constitution via a national referendum in 2005. http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm
And it's no suprise to see Texans on top of this issue... what an amazing state: http://www.initiativefortexas.org/nrm1.html
It was always my position that if my countrymen voted to eliminate the US Constitution and replace it with a Communitarian system, that I would stop fighting it. IF this is what the majority of Americans want as their new government, then I have no leg to stand upon in my resistance. But... and this is the hugest but... nobody I know has had the opportunity to consider the actual terms for the change, or the legal position.
As the mandate for global sustainable development does not only affect the United States, I'm thinkng the referendum to repeal LA21 and all international trade agreements that endanger local humans should be an inclusive, global document.
The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California looks like a good starting place to study the process, but their information may not be all that great because they include the Netherlands in their list of the "five democracies" that have never had a national referendum, and my ACL studies show that the Dutch rejected the EU Constitution via a national referendum in 2005. http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm
And it's no suprise to see Texans on top of this issue... what an amazing state: http://www.initiativefortexas.org/nrm1.html
We Americans have the most powerful constitution in the history of the world. Let's use it for the benefit of all humans who suffer under the emerging global system. Let's defeat the New World Order at the polls, or at least bring the issue to the public for an open and heated debate. If Americans vote for the NWO then I can adjust my plans accordingly. It would be pretty stupid of me to keep defending the American system if the American people want to be communitarians.
If the UN plan for local sustainable development is so great, why hide it anymore? Let's put it out there so all our people can decide for themselves who rules America.
4 comments:
Niki, the Texan's may have accidentally revealed a flaw in the referendum process. In the first paragraph, after stating the fact that "this is the people's most important power because it is through redress that all other rights are protected..." they say: " ... the citizens' ability to redress grievances in a convenient, timely and effective manner that prevents representative government from becoming misrepresentative of the people's will."
The keywords here are convenient, timely, effective, and prevent.
While it was always convenient to call for redress, and any such action would certainly have been timely 100 or even 50 years, it has never been effective, and prevention has long since been made an obsolete idea by the very presence of the thing which should have been prevented.
Curiously, "the petition process of choice in America has been voter initiative and referendum for a century".
Should the people become "lawmakers"? Thats the objective of one group:
"People's Lobby's most recent citizen-initiated legislation is the American World Service Corps (AWSC) ... As the originator of the National Initiative movement in the 1970's, People's Lobby Inc. (PLI) will also continue educating Americans on and lobbying American voters to empower themselves as lawmakers by enacting a National Initiative Process."
Even the Treehuggers of America are calling for a "2008 Social Uprising, A Collective Evolution".
Initiative and Referendum is being used not to correct the errors of government, but to legislate by majority rule, an idea which the founders despised with a passion.
The Constitution provides for redress of grievance. Why did that process fail, and what is the next Constitutional step?
It seems to me that movements of this nature are designed to act as a relief valve to siphon of the energy of the resistance.
"Thomas Jefferson gave an opinion in 1791, on just what Congress can and cannot do in regards to providing for the general welfare, and that is, "they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them (Congress) up straitly within the enumerated powers and those which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." Thomas Jefferson, 1823
- Redress of Grievances
A national referendum to repeal the UN Local Agenda 21 mandate for Sustainable Development has never been attempted in the U.S. or any other country that I am aware of. It wouldn't be designed to write "law," it would be to dismantle every law passed by congress that promotes sustainable development.
Just because the communitarians know how effective the process is doesn't mean they own it Bobby. Would they try to co-opt this if it ever got off the ground. Yes. Would they win? not if I was on the drafting committee.
And I wonder if Jefferson was thnking about the Alien and Sedition Act when he wrote that in 1791. :)
The problem with the people not fighting this is due the the fact that they think everything is exactly as it has always been. They have no clue our government is a foreign entity and alien to the Constitution.
The Constitutional laws have been shelved "but" are still on the books. Every Agency, Federal, and Local claim to be operating under American Laws claiming nothing has changed when people rise up against it.
What I described in my Testimony happened in a Federal Agency and all the Regulations, and Protocols where still on the books. When I claimed they were not being followed and that things were not being done according to the regulations they told me..."nothing has changed" They minimized my redress and grievances. The dialectic has changed the meaning of words and actions.
Edith
Voter initiative and referendum makes us more democratic and less republican.
Voter initiative and referendum may be associated with the transfer of the election of Senators to the popular vote. (1913) Both can be seen as a progressive move to "make the constitution more democratic".
"These dangers are heightened by the reality that any major constitutional changes are likely to occur as a result of a major political or economic crisis. History suggests that even relatively well-informed voters might be tempted to approve of measures that promise relief from the immediate danger without considering their potential long-term effects."
The first amendment to the Constitution protects "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When people ignore the infringement on their right of peaceable assembly and line up for permits instead, how are they to be taken seriously by the government which grants those permits?
"...the true and correct form of Republican Government that we are supposed to have in the United States, as enumerated by the duly ordained and established United States Constitution of 1787, has already been conveniently replaced by a Federalist Run State Government."
What are the guidelines for operating a "Federalist Run State Government"?
Obviously it doesn't honor requests for Redress of Grievance. Will it honor voter initiative and referendum?
It doesn't honor the 10th amendment either and thats why the people now believe they are "taxpayers".
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- 10th Amendment
I found this interesting question in my research:
"Did the Framers of the Constitution destroy the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation and establish a consolidated government or did they simply modify and expand the existing federal system?"
- Is Our Government Legitimate?
Post a Comment