|
|
 |
|
Monday 18 August 2008 08:10
Welcome to the web site!
This is the
personal website of R. J. Thayer, who indulges in technical and
speculative writing, as well as website administration. This
website is generally intended to visualize the system dynamics
of the American Constitution. Much of the speculation involves world
constitutions as well and why some nations regress into
totalitarianism. This site contains material that is freely
developed in a speculative mind set and reserves all the rights
attendant to speculative (note speculative) literary activity.
Please keep in mind the site is also a 'work in
progress' used to test various website features and publishing
modes.
|
|
|
|
SPECULATIONS.
Everyone has
indulged in re-writes of the American Constitution, usually in an attempt to
re-arrange it to suit their current beliefs, instinctive needs or economic
benefit, but it has endured largely in its original form or as amended.
The reason for this is that it defined the more fundamental
structure of a human society rather than current perceived values of its
members and specifically prohibited its members from imposing their particular
values on others without their consent. That is, it was created (or
ordained) to specifically prevent the imposition of someone's totalitarian
desires and gratifications, which most everyone has.
Vice Presidents? Do they just sit around in the Senate Office Building waiting for a president to
leave the White House or should they have constituted powers of their own
besides tiebreaking votes in the Senate? Or would the Nation be better if he
commanded counter terrorist forces attached to the UN?
The US Constitution does not really detail what functions the Vice President
has, other than being President of the Senate with the responsibility of
breaking tie votes on legislation. It goes into some lengths about his
qualifications and determines through the 25th Amendment the succession to the
presidency, basically to bring continuity to the government. But this
continuity basis has changed over the years and there is again a possibility
that the remarkable prescience of the Founders has embedded an empowerment in
the Constitution that is only applicable to the present globalization of
humanity.
Many nations have joined in the
United Nations to prevent the plague of international aggression that virtually
all governments held as a sovereign 'right' that had little to do with
protection of its territory, but a great deal to do with acquiring wealth
created by the hard work of other societies. In the last 10,000 years,
nearly all human aggression was for the purpose of acquiring wealth, power and
women by a parasitic attachment to other people or societies. So
powerful is this biological imperative that even so-called modern societies
legitimatize parasite aggression or ignore it within their own societies.
The most obvious examples of this parasitism are the Taliban (Afghanistan), Al Qaeda
(Pakistan),
Organizatsija (Russia), and Zetas (Mexico) cults that operate within the
safety of a nationalist state.
The problem with the sociopathic cults is that they attempt to acquire weapons
of mass destruction in order to carry out their parasitic aggression, or simply
from a hatred of humanity doctrine that allows them to kill humans. There is no real
Constitutional mechanism for dealing with this deadly cult process except by a
very extensive military attack against the host state, noting that the use of
cults as an attack weapon by the state is an act of war. The United Nation Charter's
Article 51 (Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security) allows an attacked state to defend itself without the consent of the
UN but does not define an attack. Drug smuggling into a country could
qualify as an attack by a weapon of mass destruction since hundreds and
thousands of citizens are harmed by the smuggling. Using a cult factory to
manufacture a toxic consumer item for export to a target population can also be
considered an attack not covered by Article 51, but certainly a location that
deserves the attention of an artificially intelligent munition.
Note the powers of the Congress as
listed in the Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11
(powers of the Congress): To declare War, grant Letters of
Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;.
The letter of Marque was used in the 1700s to
permit individuals to act as military extensions of a government who was
protecting citizens far from its own borders and as a means to justice without
resorting to full scale war. Note the power of the President as stated in
the Constitution:
Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 (powers of
the President): The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States;. The Letter of Marque was largely used against
pirates, criminal strongholds, mercenary bases such as slave centers and
cross-border murderer sanctuaries. But this is very close to the
definition of havens for the sociopathic or parasite cults attacking people in
the modern world.
Suppose that the Congress issued a Letter of Marque and
Reprisal for a particular cult that empowered the elected President
of the Senate to act as an elected ambassador to the UN in order to use necessary
and precise force
under Article 51? That is; the Vice President acts as the American
ambassador to the UN and is empowered by the Letter of Marque to use force
against an international cult that combines not only substantial
rewards for capture of the sociopaths, but appoints law enforcement cadres,
paramilitary units, and governmental special troops to remove the threat. In
addition, there would be options for the use of guided munitions into host
countries when they could not show the concept of 'territorial integrity' for
the area within their borders, a condition that might exist in sixty per cent of
the world's 'sovereign' land areas. Territorial integrity is defined by
the ability of the constituted government to maintain law, including laws
against Crimes against Humanity, and order in the
territory. A cult will define territory in its own terms and if its
activities are in violation of UN Crimes against Humanity declarations, it
would be subject to a Letter of Margue by the targeted society. If the
sociopaths are engaged the in production of WMD or suspected of it, they are guilty and subject to
immediate reprisal unless they can prove their innocence. That is,
possession of the means or method is sufficient to establish guilt. Modern
technologies can establish a pattern of genocide in areas of no territorial
integrity and in some cases within a heavily protected state facility. The
pattern itself is sufficient to establish guilt of mass murder unless it can be
shown otherwise. A standing letter of Marque and Reprisal giving authority to an
elected vice president that represents both the Congress and the President
internationally might free the government from constantly engaging in warfare
debates when an act of reprisal is immediately necessary.
As elected UN ambassador , the Vice President's Letter
of Margue and Reprisal could bring force against an enemy of Humanity without the
declaration of war or the consent of the full UN Security Council if there was
an immediate need of using force. It is absurd to 'discuss' elimination
of a cult suspected of Crimes against Humanity when it can relocate in a matter
of hours. There can be no sanctuary for such a dangerous entity,
regardless of the state that fosters it, and no nation has a right of veto over
the use of the Letter of Marque that prevents mass murder.
This new empowerment by the Congress through the Letter of Marque would place
the Vice President in an active role that allows him to compliment and succeed
the president quickly and easily.
The
' Common Defence' and 'General Welfare' of the
American Constitution is
extended to Humanity by this new duty of the Vice President, as well as adding
security to the citizens he is responsible for during his election.
|
Comments? constitution_query@comcast.net
|
|
US Constitution, the last but not final
covenant with Creation?
Preamble to The US
Constitution
We the People
of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
A
modern interpretation of the 'Death Penalty'.
There is a fair amount of evidence that the process of
death in itself may not be a penalty at all. It
could just as easily be a liberation from pain and
suffering, as increasing numbers of people who have
chosen euthanasia for terminal illnesses understand.
Suicide might be morally wrong if there is no reason for
it, but to suggest that Creation designed life to be an
endless torture is to suggest there is something
fundamentally wrong with Creation, no matter how
Creation is perceived.
The problem with a 'penalty' is that the person who has
committed an act justifying a 'death penalty' by
justice seeking Homosapiens might not be capable of understanding
any relation with Homosapiens. That is, the
individual who has committed a predatory crime against
humanity no longer meets the minimum standards of the
Homosapien species; it is just another predatory animal
carrying out a primitive imperative and might not even
have the ability to feel pain for itself or others. There are many
recent studies concerning sociopaths, including very
modern MRI brain scans, that indicate a lack of
empathy for humans.
Under such a definition, the idea of a 'death penalty'
has no meaning while euthanasia of an animal does.
If society determines that severe crimes against
humanity were committed by a verifiably tested sociopath
that is 'terminally ill', why is there an objection to
euthanasia (execution by lethal injection) if the
concept of punishment is meaningless? When a 'death
penalty' of humans can be carried out by some entity on
any street of planet Earth, a much more precise
societal definition of euthanasia is very much needed.
Amendment XIII, Section 1. Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
Do the terms 'slavery' and 'involuntary servitude' as defined
in the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 equate with the modern definition described
in the Rome Statute, Article 7, Section g 'Sexual Slavery' of 2002? There
have been many instances in the United States where men and women have been
forced into purely physical relationships against their will and spirit but the
acts are permitted as 'religious' activities with 'free exercise thereof'
under the First Amendment.
At what point does a person renounce this
amendment in order to commit a Crime against Humanity? If the
perpetrator engages in servitude of others for personal or instinctive gain, the current
Western Hemisphere definition of slavery, has he NOW committed a Crime against
Humanity , even though the definition of such a crime has only existed since the
Nuremberg trials of the 1940s? Slavery has been a normal human activity since
the establishment of tribal societies 10,000 years ago and was in many, many
instances a mechanism for preventing tribal genetic in-breeding. It was so
defined in virtually all of the Spiritual Scriptures such as the Vedas (1500
BCE), Daoist Canons (900 BCE), Torah (850 BCE), Mahayana (500 BCE), Bible (50
CE), and in the Quran (650 CE), but later began to be defined in
terms of chattel property (850CE).
Modern
slavers have universally defined slavery in terms of their personal
property to be disposed of at the will of the owner and it was only
after that process became wide spread did it also become a 'Crime
against Humanity' during the totalitarian imperialism of the
1940s. If involuntary servitude or sexual slavery is listed as a
mere item 'g' in the Rome Statute and allowed to be practiced in every
country with minor prohibitions, how is the Thirteenth Amendment
currently relevant with its 1865 prohibition of human property but not
degradation of the will and spirit? The current world processes of
involuntary servitude do not involve human property as much as they do
spiritual degradation for economic and instinctive gains. This being a
process any ruling cult can establish and which the Spiritual
Scriptures universally prohibited even for physical slaves. Is it
a Human evolutionary process to proceed from ten thousand years of
physical enslavement to a thousand years of spiritual enslavement?
Shouldn't the physical environment of which slavery was a part
systematically evolve into spiritual enhancement?
Comments? evolution_query@earthlink.net
|
Second Amendment
Speculations
|
|
If the supreme court is empowered to determine the
constitutionality of a law 'in terms of the current society', handguns would be
a natural extension of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. But note that
the Amendment implies the 'open' bearing of arms for defense (militias imply
community defense in which each member openly carried a weapon), not concealed
offensive devices, let alone current limited mass destruction weapons. In the
modern sense, as many states have legalized, the open bearing of arms is not
restricted, while brandishing it could easily be considered simple assault. A
concealed handgun can be used for self defense in the absence of constituted
authority (police) but that has not been the case with bans. With total or
severe bans, only those with an offensive intent have concealed offensive
devices and this defeats the defensive intent of the 2nd Amendment. Modern laws
governing weapons bans should have provisions that defensive training in the use
of concealed devices satisfies the intent of the 2nd Amendment as an addition to
'open' bearing of arms.
But
into this Second Amendment discussion one can introduce the idea of a 'simple
weapon of mass destruction' or SWMD which did not exist at the time the 2nd
Amendment was conceived. The roadside bombs, machineguns, anthrax
envelopes, or intoxicated drivers that kill many in a single instance are
very real things in this century. In the 1790s an SWMD was very nearly
inconceivable, but if you decided to roll a loaded eight pounder filled with
grapeshot down main street, guess what the local militia would do to you with or
without a 2nd Amendment ? The proliferation of SWMDs that can be concealed
on one's person has changed the original meaning of ' keep and bear arms'.
The modern militias (that is, police and their deputies) carry items like
automatic carbines, 15 shot large caliber pistols, spray firing shotguns and
have almost immediate access to building-destroying munitions from the military.
And these are just to protect themselves and others from predators who have
similar SWMD in their clothes.
The
Second Amendment concept was to allow the training of local militiamen through
their ability to bear arms. Training certainly included the ability to
hunt for food or go to competitions or practice target shooting to protect one's
family against the occasional highwayman. Indeed, the training might be
considered a 'useful art' enumerated by the Article I, Section 8 powers of
the Congress. This bearing of arms meant defending oneself and others in the
absence, note absence, of constituted authority such as sheriffs and deputies.
The Amendment was to establish the right of self-defense in the absence of any
other defense and that has been a human value since the last ice age. To ban
such a right implies that the prohibitioners believe that ALL humans have
evolved dramatically since that ice age, a flat contradiction of human history.
Nearly all modern crimes are committed by the use of SWMD from ambush in the
absence of constituted authority. Even selling drugs to ten people could
qualify as an SWMD attack, compounded by the attacker's use of other SWMD to
insure his drug attack. With modern populations, it is an
ideological unreality to expect constituted authority to protect every person
all the time against modern forms of terrorism. It would be more
appropriate to define the Second Amendment in terms of the defense of citizens
in the modern society who are protecting themselves with regulated
personal defense weapons against predators with attack weapons AFTER a
constitutionally recognized ban on SWMD devices is established as each segment
of society sees fit. Any current ban on all weapons that does not carefully
define the difference between personal defense rights and predatory ambush
should not be held as constitutional.
Definition of a Simple Weapon of Mass Destruction: any personal device or
combination of personal devices (excluding communication devices) that will
kill, physically maim or mentally harm a group of people in less time
than it takes to prepare, load and use a musket of 1790.
Comments? constitution_query@comcast.net
| | |
|
Comments?
Send to:
Constitution_query@comcast.net
Copyright,
©, all rights reserved,
Robert J. Thayer 2006, 2007,2008
Memepriv,  ,
all rights reserved, Robert J. Thayer 2006,2007, 2008
R. J. Thayer P.O. Box 2167 Woodbridge VA
22192
| | |
|