Starting Over
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I've
seen various names used to refer to constitutions. Some people call
them organic law. I believe that's a silly name for them. Things
that are organic are things that eat, breathe, and so forth. Some
people have called them fundamental law. I don't believe that they're
fundamental. In terms of inherent status, they're equivalent to legislation
in that both constitutions and legislation are enactments of men.
Any doubt on that point is dispelled by Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S.
constitution, in which the constitution itself declares that the constitution,
federal legislation, and treaties all have equal status. Being the
enactments of men, constitutions are not even law at all. See
Law
vs. Legislation, in Milam's
Dictionary of Distinctions, Differences, and Other Odds and Ends,
in The Sovereign's Library.
Even
so, constitutions are the sources of lawful governments. A lawful
government doesn't exist by it's own authority. It exists by the
authority of its constitution. The constitution, not the government,
establishes the officers, departments, powers, limits, and so forth, of
a lawful government. Any government not so constituted is an unlawful
government. The constitution is the source of the government, and
not the other way around.
The
idea that a government is a creature of its constitution has a consequence
that, so far as I'm aware, isn't generally recognized. That consequence
is with regard to the continuity of a government. When a constitution
is terminated and a new constitution is enacted in its place, then the
government doesn't exist continuously through the transition. Rather,
the previous government must necessarily vanish when its constitution is
terminated. It cannot legitimately exist without its constitution.
A new government, under the new constitution, is erected in its place.
Some of the forms and powers of the new government might be the same as
those of the previous government. The territory claimed by the new
government might be the same as that claimed by the previous government.
The name of the new government might be the same as the name of the previous
government. None of those things cause them to be the same government.
Consider
the United States of America that were mentioned in the Declaration
of Independence, the United States of America that were allied by the
Articles
of Confederation, and the United States of America that was established
by the U.S. constitution. The first were sovereign states, cooperating
to resist a common enemy. The second were independent states that
had sacrificed some of their sovereignty by way of a treaty known as the
Articles
of Confederation. The third was a single national government,
created by a constitution. That they shared the same name and somewhat
the same territory is entirely coincidental. Such superficial similarities
are legally and constitutionally irrelevant with regard to an allegation
of the continuity of a government.
Some
issues are raised by the discontinuous nature of government, at the creation
of a new constitution, and by the reliance of a government on its constitution,
for its legitimacy. For instance, a new government doesn't acquire
the obligations, powers, forms, or possessions of the previous government
unless there is some instrument, or some provision in the new constitution,
that so provides. Such considerations are generally relevant but
are particularly so for the American states on the east coast and in the
south and, in consequence, for the entire union. I presented, in
several of my essays, an analysis of the failures of pedigree and process
that arose during the origins and histories of those governments, and of
their resulting lack of legitimacy. The essays are available in Pharos,
under the heading The
Supreme Flaw of the Land Essays. There have been so many
such failures, and they have been so pervasive, that they have entirely
extinguished any constitutional legitimacy that those governments might
otherwise have had. In my opinion, the governments are so flawed
that they cannot be rendered legitimate. I believe that the only
remedy is to end them. As I see it, the Articles of Confederation,
the U.S. constitution, and all of the state constitutions should be terminated,
thereby extinguishing all of the existing governments. Then, the
people can try again.
To
prevent the new governments from having the same deficiencies that afflict
the present ones, the people who will write the new constitutions should
first divest themselves of their present mental conditioning. That
will be a long and painful process of unlearning lies and of discarding
false assumptions. They'll need to acquire an understanding of such
things as personal sovereignty, the principles of liberty, and the doctrine
of social contract. Otherwise, the result will be the creation of
police states that aren't any different in substance from the present ones.
The best preparation that I can suggest for writing the new constitutions
is to study my essays under the heading Liberty,
Sovereignty, and the Doctrine of Social Contract, in Pharos.
The sooner started, the sooner finished.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
March 2018 |
Frontiersman,0c/o
4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/ |
Page
3 |
|