Retained by the People: The Case for Participatory Democracy. Part I: The Social Contract

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, articulated the relationship between the People and government.

 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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.

 This is the illustration of John Locke’s concept of the social contract; that the government is only legitimate due to its being endowed with its powers by the PEOPLE.  When the government is no longer serving the needs of the people, and is operating in direct contradiction to their needs, desires, and safety, I consider that government despotic.  Under such circumstances the PEOPLE are morally OBLIGATED to dissolve or alter that government.  Do not mistake me when I say that we are at this point.  I do not speak in jest.  All three branches of government have violated their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  

The President, the head of our executive branch of government, has suspended habeas corpus.  He has ordered that our phones be tapped without the issuing of warrants.  The Congress voted this past summer to endorse this program, and grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that are complicit in this scheme.

 According to Amendment 4, ratified on 15 December 1791:

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 Amendment 5, ratified on 15 December 1791:

 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 The Executive is in violation of both the 4th and 5th amendments.  Congress has violated the 4th amendment.  Both the Executive and the Legislature are in violation of the social contract.

 On October 17, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the ruling of the 6th District Court of Appeals that ordered Ohio Secretary of State, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, to double check and verify the identities of hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters, many of whom were fraudulent and submitted by the Obama voter registration/voter fraud machine known as ACORN, and provide that information to Ohio’s 88 counties.  The SCOTUS did not rule based on constitutional premise, nor on the merits of the case brought before the Court of Appeals, nor on whether the Help America Vote Act was being properly enforced, but on the Court’s supposition that the Republican Party would not be successful in arguing that, “Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order.”

 Because of this ruling, the Democrat Secretary of State of Ohio knowingly allowed fraudulent voter registrations to stand thus violating the sanctity of the vote of the citizens of Ohio.  It is true that the Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote, but it does detail how the right to vote cannot be denied.  The Constitution leaves the qualifications for voters to the states.  There is nothing in the Ohio State Constitution that guarantees the right to vote to anyone who submits false registration information.  In fact, some false registrants who had voted early had their ballots thrown out.  It should then be assumed by the Courts that allowing for the possibility of false registrants voting is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.  The Supreme Court knowingly failed to rule on the issue at hand; the sanctity of the vote of the citizens of Ohio, and whether the Ohio Secretary of State should have to operate in accordance with her state’s constitution.  In failing to do so the SCOTUS violated its oath of office.  It is in violation of the social contract.

 Now we come to the case of Phillip Berg.  He filed a suit in Philadelphia Federal District Court in August challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the President.  Judge Surrick dismissed the case, stating in his opinion:

 “If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

 In his response to the dismissal Berg stated the following:

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?

 Make sure that you understand what the Federal District Court has said:  The citizens of the United States do not have the right to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States.  I have quoted John Adams on this issue before and I will cite him again.  Adams made it quite clear that we have an undeniable and indefeasible right to know the character of those who would serve in our government.  An indefeasible right is a right we possess, regardless of whether or not it is granted to us in the Constitution.  It is our right as human beings.  The Federal District Court is violating a right it has no purview to rule on.  The judiciary has violated the social contract.

 My friends the time has come to exercise our unalienable rights as Americans, and as human beings, to alter or dissolve the federal government.  Let me be clear:  I am not calling for an armed rebellion against our government.  

 It is our sacred, unalienable, indefeasible right to be governed by a structure that effects our Safety and Happiness.  It is our unalienable and indefeasible right to dissolve or alter our government so that we will have a body of governance that does in fact effect our Safety and Happiness.  Neither the President, Legislature, nor the Courts have the power to prevent, impinge, or restrict any actions we take to do so through democratic means, so that is what we must do.  The time has come for the citizens of the United States to begin deliberations on the altering of the federal government, creating citizen based political bodies that will ensure our elected officials operate within the law, and work to ensure our liberty, not their power and largess (I see no immediate alternative to this solution save by the actions of the next President by reinstating the right of habeas corpus, and the ending of warrantless wiretapping; the actions of the Judiciary is another matter).  Amendments IX and X stand to ensure that our power to do so cannot be denied.

 Amendment IX, ratified 15 December 1791:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X, ratified 15 December 1791:

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.

  I firmly believe that the survival of our democratic republic depends on the willingness of the citizenry to take the necessary democratic action to rebuild our governmental structures so that we never come to this point again, and the United States of America can continue to flourish as nation that not only protects the rights of its citizens, but once again stands as an example of how government can exist to preserve, protect, and defend unalienable human rights.  I believe this must be our ultimate goal as PUMAs.

In Part II we’ll look at how, using our constitutional powers, we might accomplish this.

 

 cross-posted at Oh…my valve!