Using the Myth of the Constitution, Part 4: What to do to make the Myth REAL

by Historian

In Part One of this series, I have discussed in broad terms the flaws of the present Constitution, link HERE.

Part Two discussed the specific shortcomings of the US Constitution, and there were a number of thoughtful comments that added significant value. Link HERE.

Part Three covered suggested steps to be taken and touched on the importance of ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Link HERE.

This installment is about making the myth of the Constitution real, about how we can go about actually enforcing the Constitution.

The idea of Constitutional enforcement has been an undercurrent in American politics for a long time, almost as long as the Constitution has been in force. Lysander Spooner in his essays entitled “No Treason” was not the first person to point out this issue, nor was he the last. Yet after over 200 years of increasingly obvious issues with the Constitution, we still have no enforcement clause.

Moreover, very few people are discussing what I consider to be the single most egregious flaw in the Constitution. Neither Michael Farris in his push towards an Article 5 Constitutional Convention nor Mark Levin in his book “The Liberty Amendments” promote Constitutional ENFORCEMENT, preferring rather to propose adding still more unenforceable amendments to an unenforced, and unenforceable Document. The only person I know that pushes the idea of enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the highest law of the land is Neil Smith. Despite endless lip service about Constitutional Government, few people out of government, and nobody at ALL in government seems to actually want to enforce The Document. Why is that? Cui Bono?

Well, not having an enforcement clause sure makes looting the taxpayer a lot easier, and it also makes it a lot easier to “enact a multitude of laws and eat out our substance.” A country like ours, where over half of the people working actually work for one governmental agency or another, either directly or indirectly, does provide considerable incentive for those folks to vote in favor of keeping their jobs funded. Enacting an enforcement clause is going to be damned difficult to do; enforcement of the Constitution will break lots of rice bowls. Both the Demopublicans and Republocrats see significant benefit in maintaining the illusion of legitimacy provided by the present myth.

Oddly enough, however, given the things the ruling oligarchy in this country have recently done, like having our military parade in red high heels and importing large numbers of 7th century barbarians in the hope that Western civilization will benefit therefrom, I’m hopeful that the right combination of stimuli can make the average American politician vote for damned near anything, as long as the carrot of re-election is dangled temptingly enough in front of them. But in any case, before we get hung up on the “how,” let’s think first about what an enforcement clause ought to look like. So what should an Enforcement Clause do? I have been thinking about this over the last two years, and here are my thoughts:

One of the problems we have with the current legal system is that it is a form of guild socialism. That is, if you do not belong to the appropriate guild, and pay the guild tax, you do not get to work in that profession. Guild socialism was common in medieval times, and was an early version of merchantilism, acting to restrain market entry and limit competition. American exceptionalism was due in part to getting away from those medieval ideas, and allowing anyone who wanted to enter the market to do so. Unfortunately, the lawyers managed to maintain their guild after the Revolution, and it still rides us today. As an aside, the last time I checked, I believe that there are only a few states that still allow people to read the law and take the Bar exam without having graduated from an accredited law school, one of which is the Commonwealth of Virginia. (see links here and here.)

With regard to the broader issue of Constitutional enforcement, the problem is that it is totally impractical, (in reality not possible,) for a non-attorney at present to act to strike down an unConstitutional law, and the only way to gain ‘standing’ is to break the law and place yourself at risk of conviction. Given that the overall conviction rate for Federal indictments runs in the high 90% range, why would any sane person do such a thing when the deck is so obviously stacked against the common citizen? The 1934 GCA which led to the case of US v. Miller, where the Federal Government won on appeal because the plaintiff failed to show up at the Supreme Court, is just one example of such issues; there are probably tens of thousands. If we are to have true enforcement of the Constitution, we have to be sure that access to whatever mechanism is developed is not restricted to the privileged class of lawyers, and that people who perceive an infringement on the Constitutional limits on Federal authority do not have to place themselves at jeopardy to seek correction. Any American must have the right to challenge the acts of every level of government which purports to have jurisdiction over them.

The second issue I see is that Constitutional issues get bumped up the ladder, taking years of time and gobs of money before the Supreme Court rules on the matter at hand……or doesn’t, in which case confusion reigns for another stretch of time, and the poor suffering taxpayer who got screwed by the government in the first place gets ignored. There needs to be a process that provides PROMPT relief. “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” right? If the determination is made at the local level that there has been Constitutional infringment, or if there is any significant delay, there needs to be immediate action to provide relief from the unConstitutional law or regulation, which according to precedent is now void, but which in practise never goes away. That stay or injunction ought to restrict the government, at whatever level the action is brought, from acting until the issue is finally resolved at whatever level it ends up being resolved. Moreover, if the case is appealed, and the higher court finds in favor of the plaintiff, the stay should be required to be extended to the entire jurisdiction of the court holding in favor of the plaintiff. This puts some teeth into enforcement, and ought to help correct the present tendency of Federal attorneys to do the legal equivalent of the “Rope-a-dope” and to draw out the proceedings and attempt to bankrupt the plaintiff by appealing any time they get an adverse ruling.

The third issue is that nobody is held responsible. There is no personal accountability on the part of any of the myriads of Federal, State, or local governmental elected or appointed officials, agents, or employees for their misfeasance or malfeasance. Those who violate the Constitution do so with impunity. That DEFINITELY needs to change, and those convicted of unConstitutional activity under color of law should suffer for it, both civilly and criminally. On the civil side, the costs of the legal action should be assessed against the person or persons involved in the infringement, personally, and they ought to be discharged from their position and stripped of their wealth, as well as salary, benefits and pension, and any other assets they possess.

On the criminal side, deliberate infringement of the Constitution ought to be a felony, and any such infringement resulting in loss of life, directly or indirectly, ought to be punished severely. One could argue that such subversion of the Constitution and violation of rights under color of Law ought to be treated as treason, with the death penalty available, but in any case, any governmental employee, representative, or agent should be liable for their actions.

So there is my conceptual list of what an Enforcement Clause for the Constitution ought to do. Constitutional Enforcement ought to:

  • Be available to any citizen of these united States;
  • be resolved promptly, with the presumption in case of delay in favor of the plaintiff, and with stays or injunctions against the unConstitutional law or regulation required;
  • Those who promote or enact such rules or legislation should be held accountable for the damage they cause and the costs required to address the issue.

Next time, I will discuss how this might be accomplished. In the mean time, thoughts or constructive criticism of the above are welcomed.

With Regard to all who serve the Light,


(Originally published at Views from Liberty Hollow.)

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!


38 thoughts on “Using the Myth of the Constitution, Part 4: What to do to make the Myth REAL”

  1. There was an enforcement mechanism. When tariffs were put up against the south several states attempted to succeed. The original Neocon killed 600k of his fellow Americans. His generals laid waste, ransacked, pillaged, and plundered the country side and burned cities to the ground leaving more than a million women and children homeless and fatherless. When the Neocon war was not going well, earlier on, in order to boost support for the aggression, the aggressor claimed it was about slavery and set his enemies slaves free but not their own.
    Any voluntary, mutual compact, when no longer beneficial may be withdrawn by any party, as that party, sees fit. This is a law of H-s nature.
    Those that want to leave should petition to leave in peace and when it is denied require reason(s). And then, the entire world will know the design upon our freedom to reduce us despotism. Then we fight. I pray for another way brother, but we are really are 2, or even 3, different peoples.

    Perhaps, amending for voluntary secession by a state for breach of agreement at the sole determination of the inclined state? Second part, forbid payment of any form or any amount from federal to state or municipal governing and non governing bodies?

    1. The other side of the coin on your “second part” is forbidding the federal government from mandating the states do something–and then not paying for that. (The “unfunded mandate”) It’s really easy to play Charitable Benevolent when you can force comeone else to pay. That doesn’t just apply to supporting “welfare” but also to these unfunded mandates, that will give the feds an out even if they have ironclad spending limits put on them.

      1. Precisely. You got my greater point which is to withdraw the money…the house of cards then collapses, I would recon. And the feds have ZERO authority in the constitution to tell the states any thing (space intended).
        The chain of command in the original is, from the top; G-d, people, states, feds 3 branches. If we have subordinated ourselves to the states, and to the fed, that’s our fault. Failure to know your chain of command has repercussions.

    2. Fred: Secession needs no amendment to allow it; it is one of the powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. The Constitution as written is an amazing document, BUT IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED!

      Whether or not we manage to retrieve the present woeful state of affairs in these presently united States before the wheels come all the way off the cart, or whether we have to suffer through another civil war, at some point we will have to decide how we are to interact with one another. Some may argue that we yought to go right to anarcho-capitalism, but cultures and societies have to grow into their potential, and there are cultural prerequisites for Liberty that have to be widespread before Liberty can flourish. Anyhow, my thought is that using the power of the myth of the Constitution is probably a more fruitful path towards Liberty.

      1. “Secession needs no amendment to allow it”
        I completely agree. Yet, here we are, trapped like a beaten wife. My thought was to spell it out, so that even I (smile) could understand it. It is the people of government that hate the constitution. There is not a single article that is not willfully ignored. The Federal Register’s resultant set of policy is tyranny. The more tyrannical a government becomes the more radical its opposition becomes. This will lead to shooting, it always has. .fed ignores it, the people have never read it, our “leaders” do whatever they want, the churches are captured and interred, I swore an oath to uphold the constitution but it is now, in practice, void. We need to face this fact and proceed accordingly. We are obligated to throw off these chains. I respect any and all last attempt and will gladly give time and effort, but it may be, sadly, too late.
        I did not know of your website. I will peruse it and be in touch, L-RD willing and by your leave.

  2. Your link to the third part does not work…Instead of a pointing finger it gives me a text cursor, and when I cut and paste it, it turns out to just be the word “HERE”

    –Off I go to read Parts I and II.

  3. As we all know there are two sides to an argument, the Historian has made reference to another point of view;

    “Michael Farris in his push towards an Article 5 Constitutional Convention……”

    Sure would like to see the Zelman Partisans allow that point of view to be heard too.

    As with so much there is truth to be found in many places.

    James Madison once said;

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

    IMHO what ails us today isn’t as much in the failings of our constitution as it is in the failings of our non angels who now govern this country.

    1. “Sure would like to see the Zelman Partisans allow that point of view to be heard too.”

      We aren’t blocking you, as evidenced by your comment being here.

      If you mean that you want a post dedicated to a discussion of Farris’ CC, feel free to write it and submit it HERE.

      The fact that we haven’t written about a particular thing does not equal “not allowing” it. Our regular writers are volunteers doing this on a volunteer basis, in our not-always-copious spare time. I, for one, simply cannot write a full post on every single thing that someone on the Internet finds of interest; not even if it’s something of interest to me. We’re always looking for more writers to contribute material of interest to our members and readers.

      1. Whoa, didn’t mean to imply that anything wasn’t being allow, don’t get your dandruff up now!

        I have found Zelman Partisans to always be a place of free discussion. I wish I had more time than just a few comments every once in a while myself.

        I have contacted Farris and his organization, let’s see if they bite.

    2. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and the other founders would be astonished by cell phones, modern technology, and many other things, but I doubt that they would be surprised by the antics of our current crop of politicians. Dismayed and disgusted, perhaps, but not surprised.

      We must design systems of government to suit the humans we are, not the angels some of us aspire to be, and the key to this is to make authority and responsibility balance one another. Right now there is a surfeit of authority and a dearth of responsibility!
      Constitutional Enforcement would help redress that imbalance.

      1. Those founding guys sure couldn’t have seen everything for sure but I do believe they did understand one thing pretty well, anything created by humans is and will be imperfect as we all humans are.

        Before Adams & Jefferson died they became friends after being harsh enemies, in one of their many letters there at the end it is my understanding that Adams asked Jefferson if they had gotten it right (that was the constitutional republic), Jefferson answer supposedly was; No but the people would make it right.

        And folks that is where the problem lies IMHO, not that the founders were perfect because they wasn’t and they knew it, just that we the people have pretty much made a muck of it by not making the proper improvements when and where needed or even by making it worst with our actions.

        Thomas Jefferson once wrote;

        “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…..

        Something else I agree with him about too.

        The only question I have is do we have to wait until it is absolute despotism or is there ways of preventing that still today without complete revolution? If there is a way I’m for that first for sure.

        1. I think they actually did a pretty damned good job, given what they had to work with. Of course we’ve learned a lot from watching their product slowly fail. True it’s human failings that are doing it in, but a lot of the “engineering” they did was to try to take that into account.

          An enforcement mechanism would have been a good add. Other fixes aren’t fixes in principle, but in details.

          One thing that would be interesting, for the next go around, would be a declaration of principles in the document itself. Say, a statement that the sole purpose of the government is the protection of individual rights and any ruling on the meaning of some clause must take that into account (be sure to define “rights” properly! “Right to Health Care”…doesn’t qualify!) Stepping outside the list of powers *could* be acceptable if its for that purpose, something that can be argued to be on the list of powers would not be.

          I am normally an advocate of listing the powers. But we know for a fact the founding fathers did forget to list something…the government was not authorized to make the Louisiana Purchase! I am pretty certain that IF they had thought “what if someone wants to sell us territory” during the convention, they’d have listed it in art 1 section 8–whose rights are violated (other than by the taxes to pay for it…already an issue anyway). They didn’t, so Thomas Jefferson–the last person one would expect to do so–violated the Constitution.

  4. Historian, I’m sticking with it. Gun free zones don’t work because criminals don’t follow the law. Government, not following the law is also criminal. Your bulletized proposal is for even more rules. It will not work. Your government is criminal.
    How do we en’force’ the constitution? All force is threat of violence ultimately backed at gun point. We must withdraw consent to be governed in the current manner. If I withdraw consent to be governed and seek to be left alone then I will be Ruby Ridge’d.
    I continue to suggest secession by one or several of the semi-autonomous states. But be prepared for war. There is too much money and power at stake to be let go quietly. You know It (gov) will come for us.
    Want to enforce the constitution? Withdraw consent to be governed in the current manner then fight to the death for your children’s freedom.
    I was suggesting earlier that we try to codify in plain language that succession is a (given (I’m making my own head hurt)) right so that everybody can understand it without having to have the slightest knowledge of H-s natural law and the true meaning of 10.
    I, for one, am not as eager to “get this party started” as some of our younger brothers. It’s not that I have more to lose it’s that violence to me is a last resort. It is important that we try EVERY peaceable avenue first even if we, in the meanwhile, suffer a long train of abuses before a H-ly, righteous, and just G-d. It is vital, if we intend to win, that we be right before H-m.
    I am not the man we need, whose vision would be followed by millions, to effect our freedom. I am one that can execute tasks within the larger strategy. As to a future form of a mutual defense agreement (gov), again, this is not me.

    Very interesting discussion. Let’s have it some more going forward if you like. Thanks.

    1. Right now, there is nobody trying to enforce the Constitution, and thus it is not clear that these slow careful infringements are such. Very few people today are willing to advocate the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution. That will change, indeed it already has begun to, but at least for now the power of the myth of the Constitution is still substantial. It will be very difficult for the status quo to argue that the Constitution should not be enforced, and it may well avoid considerable bloodshed to have such an enforcement provision put in place.

      Those who advocate a civil war are fools, for they do not know what they would unleash. Much better to resolve matters peaceably if possible.

      1. No one abhors war more than the warrior. Those who have seen the elephant, in all its horrid, ghastly, and brutal ways; would likely not wish it on those they detest. Yet, at this point in our history; its inevitability seems almost palpable. I surely do not wish it so – while hoping cooler heads prevail, I am also reconciled in my mind that it may yet be. My resolve is such, that should we have war… we finish it as victors. No other outcome is acceptable. May G-d protect us, and have mercy on us; as He sees best to do so.

    1. Backwoods Engineer, you are quite right! I was thinking about including both of those in an earlier draft, but settled on the NFA and Miller. Mea Culpa! I shall speak harshly to the proofreading department, and I apologize for the error. My thanks, sir, for pointing it out.

  5. “I’ve lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages. ”

    “In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. ”

    Ben Franklin at the Constitutional Convention

    Ole Ben was a pretty smart guy and IMHO foresaw how & why this great republic would one day end.

    1. Each new effort is built upon past attempts, one reason that the study of history is so important. We are the heirs of at least 3500 years of experimentation with human governance; our tradition carries from the English common law, which has roots in both Norse and Roman traditions; Roman law in turn can trace its roots back at least to the Babylonians and Hammurabbi’s Code.

      Whatever succeeds the Constitution should be better than that document. While we cannot see the future, it is worth the effort to have the discussion.

      1. A few caveat’s;

        First; it will take better men to make a better constitution

        Second; it will take a better people (because obviously we haven’t been too successful) to make it work no matter what the constitution says

        Third; I don’t see where either of these exist today but if they did IMHO they would need to be like something George Mason once said;

        “That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

  6. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, USC….the POTUS eligibility clause, i.e. Natural Born citizen requirement. This requirement was ignored regarding Obama. He is not “natural born” and of all the lawsuits challenging such, not one was allowed to be heard. Most, if not all, challenges to Obama’s eligibility being denked using the excuse that plaintiffs had “no standing”. Bull !

    Today, we have the Canadian-Cuban Cruz having attempted to be annointed as Republican POTUS candidate. But like Obama he too is not natural born. In fact, he was a Canadian citizen only a few years ago until he renounced said citizenship. Yet, the folks opposed to adhering to the USC have ignored Cruz being born on foreign dirt, by a Cuban father and a American mother. Thus, Cruz was/is a tri-nationality citizen….Cuban-Canadian-American. Yet, only one American challenged Cruz’ eligibilty….a Patriot from Pennsylvania attempting to keep Cruz off the primary ballot in PA. Of course, Comonwealth Court simply dismissed the challenge as the court simply and wrongfully declared “he is

    Today, the USC is dead. Perhaps it was never truly alive as we have seen the 2nd Amendment infringed 10s of thousands of times, only Congress able to “coin” money relieved of that responsibility by a private cabal of bankers, courtesy of the unconstitutional 16th Amendment, 19 undeclared wars in the last 70 years; and of course the continuing violation of the “natural born” citizen clause by Obama, Cruz and Rubio ! Yet no one seems to be interested in upholding their oath to defend the Constitution. The citizenry doesn’t care about the Constitution nor do the power brokers of the 4th Estate and the 535 ruling elites of the US Congress. Why continue to promote the facade of the US Constitution ? It is not written to be enforceable as outlined above.

    The Constitution is kaput and under Obama we have become little more than a Banana Republic.

    1. As I understand it, the law defines someone born overseas to an American as an American citizen from birth, with no naturalization necessary, and that there is no requirement to actually be born on US soil.

      If so, in both Obama’s and Cruz’s case the “Birthers” are all wet, even if Obama was born in Kenya (and there is legally valid record of his being born in Honolulu).

      1. Gee Steve, you’re another fool. You understand little regarding natural born. Natural born requires two parents who are AMERICAN citizens at the birth of their child. Being born on foreign soil does not allow for “natural born”. “Songbird” McCain was considered natural born due to 2 American-citizen parents and being born in the Panama Canal Zone; soil considered American territory.

        Soetoro-obama on the other hand only provided a fraudulent birth certificate THREE years AFTER he was annointed the NWO’s POTUS. Soetoro-obama himself said he was born in Kenya, his wife said he was born there and his paternal grandmother stated Soetoro-obama was born there. Regardless of where he was born….his father WAS NOT a US citizen. Thus he is not natural born. Additionally, Soetoro-obama’s adopted daddy brought Barry to Indonesia, enrolled him in Idonesian schools. As such ONLY Indonesian citizens were allowed in the country. Barry Barack Soetoro-obama obviously renounced his US citizenship to get into Indonesia. Barry Soetoro-obama IS NOT a US citizen. If he ever was a citizen he was not natural born. But, nevertheless, his emigrating to Indonesia eliminated any US citizenship he may have had. In any case he is a fraud and you, with 10s of millions of other American are quite simply fools.

        And Ted Cruz….what an unconstitutional joke that illegal immigrant is.

        Amerika is in it’s death throes because of people like you. I wonder how you’ll fare in the coming festivities.

  7. First I’ve seen of this series, apparently I’ve not been keeping up on blogs like I’d like. Anyway…

    The big problem is that the government must initiate an enforcement activity, and is also the judge of the constitutionality of the action being considered. As stated, never going to happen. You’ll notice the Constitution never indicated action that would be initiated and carried through by citizens independent of government.

    I think some here might like to comment on a google doc I’ve messed around with a while back, still want input on turning it into a proper constitution. Like the current one, it doesn’t ask permission from masters or others to change things, once enough people get together, they’re prompted to start it themselves.

    The important thing for this comment is one of the enforcement mechanisms I like, dubbed the “New Texas Rule” from the planet of the same name from a book coauthored by H Beam Piper: If a politician or bureaucrat is being a dick, you can shoot him for it. If the government doesn’t like it, they have to prove in front of a jury of true peers that he didn’t deserve it.

    Here’s the doc, before I forget:

    1. Better men are not required, but rather good men with better ideas, based on experience, and founded in the principles of Liberty, and infused with a relentless persistence. Constitutional enforcement is not a new idea; it has been around for a long time, and it is STILL a better idea. What is needed now is the relentless persistence to enact it. If not now, when? After the fall?

      We may indeed get stuck with that alternative, but it strikes me as a better choice to do it now.

      1. I don’t know of a better idea than small, divided, and very limited government however making it work is the part that appears to be hard it’s seems. The problem IMHO is not in the people who set us on that path but more so with the people who have come hence in how they have followed that path.

        I wish we could solve our problems today by just writing something on paper however methinks we have come to a point once predicted by James Madison and previously demonstrated by history;

        “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

        I am afraid it will get much worse before it’s gets very much better. I do pray I am wrong but I disapprovingly don’t believe that I am.

  8. In your Part 1 you say:

    “I suggest that instead of constraining the Federal Government to the use of gold and silver money, that we instead forbid the Federal government or the States from issuing any money whatever. . . . One way to gradually introduce this would be to first allow private minting in competition with the Federal Reserve.”

    This, out of all the changes discussed, is the only thing I think could actually do any good, and hence will be the most fiercely resisted by the system. It would necessarily imply the reversal of the criminalization of financial privacy, which, in the present political climate, is about as realistic as repeal of the income tax. The threat to liberty is far beyond being eradicable by working within the system, it is going to require neutralization of the present system. A way to accomplish this without the bloodshed and devastation of neutralization by force or revolt or collapse is to establish an alternate (economic) system, thereby gradually “starving the beast”. Recent technological advances have made this feasible – one of the best overviews of how it could work is “A Lodging of Wayfaring Men”, by Paul Rosenberg, which, albeit fictional, contains much factual information about the technology and economic theory behind an “agorist” economy. I suggest that the most fruitful work to influence the present system will be that directed towards abating its efforts to eliminate communication privacy and suppress and / or preempt the use of cyber-currency technology.

  9. Correction 2d paragraph: “Commonwealth Court….declared “he is INeligible.” My apologies for earlier error.

  10. A couple of technical points, for what they’re worth:

    With regard to your first issue, anyone is free today to represent himself in court. This happens all the time with prisoner petitions from penitentiaries. It’s called acting “pro se“. What is prohibited by the lawyers’ “guild” system is representing other people in court. I’m fine with arguing to change that, but it’s not what you said.

    As to your second issue, the ruling of any court is automatically precedential throughout that court’s jurisdiction. An appellate decision by the Second Circuit, for instance, is binding on all the lower federal courts within that circuit, just not on courts in other circuits.

    I agree with the rest of your essay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *