THE TIME BOMB IN OUR CONSTITUTION
by Kirk Brothers
CLICK HERE to return to Index
INTRODUCTION
In this Article we shall prove by at least preponderance of
evidence that:
1) The so-called government of the United States is, de facto,
operating in default;
2) We have no legal Constitution, and have had none for more
than a century;
3) Every politician and Judge knows these facts to be true;
4) Our public schools, as a matter of official policy, suppress
the truth of these facts, and teach propaganda designed to
protect those in power by discouraging independent thinking
on these crucial political realities.
You'll recall that, during the Revolutionary War, our fledg-
ling nation had no time for orderly political processes, such as
drafting basic legal documents like a Constitution. In default
of a duly-written and ratified Constitution for our new Republic,
the thirteen colonies fell back upon their pre-existing charters
from the English crown, and the all-important rights embodied in
English Common Law.
Now, we all talk about the Constitution, but most of us
don't stop to think very often about EXACTLY what a Constitution
is. And if it isn't clear in our minds as to EXACTLY what a
Constitution is, we can hardly do any rational thinking about it.
So let's agree on the basic concept.
A Constitution is a unique type of CONTRACT--meaning, in the
general sense, a legally-binding agreement. But the nature of
its terms, and the large numbers of parties to the agreement,
make it a UNIQUE contract--just as marriage is a unique contract.
In a Constitution, the people of a Republic agree on the
kind of government they shall have, and what LIMITS that
government MUST SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVE!
It is a popular misconception that a Constitution is a con-
tract between the people and the government. That misconception
was also prevalent in Paine's day, and in THE RIGHTS OF MAN Paine
set forth the facts very clearly.
Government CANNOT be a party to the contract, for the simple
and obvious reason that government does not come into existence
until AFTER the contract has been duly ratified! The parties to
the agreement are THE PEOPLE ALONE, whose representatives frame
the contract for the people's CONSENT (ratification).
In a Constitution establishing a government, there is one
notable exception to one general rule of contract law--which
exception occurs in no other type of contract to our knowledge.
That is, a Constitution may be binding if it be consented to by a
MAJORITY of the citizens, rather than ALL. We must never forget
that, in the final analysis, government is a form of NECESSARY
COERCION, and the requirement of UNANIMOUS consent is necessarily
void.
However, the voiding of ONE requirement--that of UNANIMOUS
consent--does NOT void ANY OTHER basic rule of Common Law of
contracts. Please take a few seconds to think about this next
sentence--which we call the time bomb in our Constitution.
Death cancels all contracts.
Let us be more emphatic.
DEATH CANCELS ALL CONTRACTS.
EACH AND EVERY ONE.
It is, perhaps, debatable whether our Constitution was valid
for a few years after the Framers had died--but it cannot be
rationally argued that a contract executed by persons who are,
each and every one, long dead, can be binding upon the living, by
some perversion of Mortmain. There can be no sane defense of a
claim that anyone has ever had power to execute a contract which
is BINDING UPON ALL GENERATIONS UNBORN! Except in fictitious
compacts with the Devil, NO CONTRACT IS FOREVER--under Common
Law--and we are still a Common Law nation. The Constitution does
not nullify or supplant Common Law--Common Law and the Constitu-
tion are merged.
Thomas Jefferson once remarked that every generation should
write its own Constitution. This casual remark should not be
dismissed as merely a "nice thing" that we "ought" to do--maybe!
It is a LEGAL IMPERATIVE! If your great-great-grandfather died
owing money to some other person, you cannot be liable for your
great-great-grandfather's contract. How, then, could your
great-great-grandfather agree to a CONTRACT of GOVERNMENT, and
pass along that contract to you--and COMPEL YOU to accept it, as
is, with no questions asked?!
As Samuel Goldwyn once remarked, "I'll give you the answer
in two words. Im-possible."
But if our Constitution of 1787 be merely a historical relic
with no legal force, it follows that our politicians have usurped
power by fraud. In brief, they are impostors who have assumed
titles and privileges to which they have no rightful claim.
We hold that the imposition of a government created by
persons who have been dead for centuries upon ALL their descen-
dants is somewhat analogous to what is historically called
"corruption of blood"--the punishment of future generations for
the crimes of their forebears. Our Constitution (in Article III,
#3) specifically prohibits corruption of blood, and we hold that
the RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION in the pre-eminent matter of
choosing one's government must take precedence over EACH AND
EVERY OTHER POLITICAL INTEREST!
We must never forget that the Framers of our Constitution
were all white males of wealth and power. Charles Beard's "An
Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States"
gives the gory details of their self-serving motives. Nowadays
they would probably be Republicans, because it is clear they
favored special rights and privileges for the rich.
As a side-thought we should observe that Democrats appear to
favor special rights and privileges for the poor. But Libertar-
ians favor special rights and privileges for NO ONE! Government
is not in the business of bestowing special favors upon any class
of citizens for any reason whatsoever. Government is a POLICE
FORCE, with a VERY FEW additional rights and responsibilities.
But politicians don't want it that way. Why not? Because
there's no graft in it. Let's look at the ONE AND ONLY true
cause of all our NATIONAL evils.
POLITICS
We define politics as "the science of getting more power
than anyone deserves to have".
Politics is the only science which is essentially corrupt.
It is a disease which infects every honest person who enters
public service in hopes of improving the situation. Politics
panders to the worst impulse in man--unconscionable greed. For a
detailed study of political tactics at their most despicable, see
Niccolo Machiavelli's classic discourse on tyranny, "The Prince".
We hold that there are no honest men in politics--for very
long. Any honorable person who enters politics is either cor-
rupted by the sick system, or is chewed into bits and pieces and
spit out with the garbage. An illustrative example is the brief
political career of former Senator Bradley of New Jersey.
Bradley was a celebrated professional athlete who entered
politics with the dream of cleaning up the notorious "mess in
Washington". After two terms in office he retired in disgust,
saying the system was broken so badly it could not be repaired.
Naturally, there was no shortage of candidates for his vacated
Senate seat! The system perpetuates itself with no pretense of
moral imperatives.
POLITICAL PARTIES VS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
Our politicians are fond of pontificating on the evil of
"special interest groups" who selfishly try to influence legisla-
tion in their favor.
Does that sound reasonable to you? If it does, let us ask
you one simple question. What do you imagine a political party
is? If you can't guess the answer, we'll tell you!
By definition of terms a political party is a special-
interest group which attempts to influence legislation in its
favor. But because a party is a rather large group, it PRETENDS
to be a public interest group, but this is simply another example
of "the big lie". Republicans try to ram their favored laws
through Congress, and Democrats try to promote their various
programs.
Remember that in the last Presidential election, Democrats
had the support of perhaps thirty percent of the electorate, and
Republicans about twenty percent. What kind of public interest
is that?
We herewith submit that "the public interest" is a totally
vague and undefined term--an example of what propagandists call
"the glittering generality"--which can mean just about anything
to anybody. Politicians deal in glittering generatlities, so as
to sound "good" to just about anyone, and cover up their true
motives.
Wake up and smell the coffee! A party is a self-serving
private interest group, and DOES NOT represent "the public
interest"--it merely claims to do so, for propaganda purposes.
Politicians are not stupid--they are smiling villains. America
must annihilate the two-party system, so as to open the political
arena to candidates who offer the electorate a true choice in our
elections (but not yet--we have a more imporant goal to achieve
first).
This abominable situation is what we have called the slimy
and stinking cesspool of American politics, and we demand its
reconstruction--by force, if peaceful proposals are rejected by
the impostors in power. Why impostors? Because government has
been operating in default for nearly two centuries. We do NOT
have a valid Constitution, because not a living soul has ever
been given the opportunity to consent to it. Our politicians
have usurped their power by fraud and pretense, and our traitors
called Judges uphold the imposture.
Of course the framers INTENDED to create a contract that
would last through the centuries--they were seeking stability in
the hectic days following Shays' rebellion. But the road to hell
is paved with good intentions, and in their zeal to achieve
stability they committed a legal error which apparently escaped
their notice.
It should be unnecessary to point out that the Framers did
not trust the people. For that reason they invented the
Electoral College, to give their political machinery as much
control as possible over the election of President. For that
reason they invented Article V with its nearly-impossible
conditions for making any changes in the Constitution. And for
that reason they did not provide for periodic review and
re-ratification of the document. They were in plain talk a pack
of sneaky shyster politicians themselves!
We believe that we must vigorously demand a drastic overhaul
of our present corrupt system, by adopting a new Constitution to
correct the defects of the old one--and the cornerstone of our
new government must be a plebiscite each and every seven years
to re-ratify our Constitution as written, or amend it in any
manner that at least 60 percent of the people demand.
The details of our proposals for an entirely new and truly
Libertarian Constitution are the subject of the two final--and
longest--articles in this series, but we ask that you do not at
once skip ahead to read the last chapters without first reading
and thoroughly understanding all the material intervening. Our
argument is a continuous chain, and if a chain be broken it can
hold nothing.
WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST ESTABLISH A NEW CONSTITUTION
We have probable cause to believe that a large and growing
number of Americans distrust and despise our government--that
they feel our bureaucracy stinks on ice--that their tempers are
nearing the boiling point--and that there will be a very nasty
explosion in two decades at the most, unless our impostors and
traitors in power take immediate steps to install a safety-valve
on the boiler.
A new Constitution is such a safety-valve.
We hold that these disgruntled Americans believe that our
so-called public servants are more properly deemed public
enemies, who abuse their power by pillaging the public treasury,
and meddling in our private lives more and more with each passing
year.
We believe the people of our nation feel that our "free"
elections (a lie) are a meaningless charade, which give us no
more than the dubious right to choose which team of impostors and
mediocrities shall have the privilege of screwing us for the next
four years.
The people feel left out of the political process, and this
situation must change--drastically--or there will be no averting
bloodshed on an awesome scale. The American people have been
apathetic, docile, patient, and long-suffering. Our suffering
must come to a decisive end, and soon.
We of THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT hope to prevent armed rebel-
lion by persuading a few honest men and women in Congress to
call for Constitutional revision with seven-year plebiscites, to
provide a workable mechanism for periodic ratification and/or
amendment of our Constitution so as to keep our Government honest
and responsive to the people. These are our reasons for
demanding such action.
1) Our lack of a valid Constitution, and government by default,
can no longer be concealed. Therefore, in lieu of calling
for a Constitutional convention, which of necessity would be
bitter and divisive, we call for a series of orderly, step-
by-step changes over a period of time, to avoid the danger of
throwing out the baby with the bath water.
2) Literally thousands of Amendments have been proposed, but a
mere 26 have survived the ordeal imposed by Article V upon
any plan to improve the Constitution of 1787--which is no
longer de facto valid.
3) It is not necessary for government to admit openly that we
have had no valid Constitution for more than a century. But
giving the people the right to vote on an Amendment which
would first establish the RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE
LIVING, with a Constitutional mandate for periodic ratifica-
tion/amendment procedures in which THE PEOPLE have the last
word, would defuse to a great degree the present tensions.
It would also show that the government is acting in good
faith (for a change).
4) Seven year periods comply with the usual statute of limita-
tions, and guarantee that each and every American shall have
a frequent meaningful role in the governmental processes.
5) During the seven years intervening between conventions for
each referendum ballot, many older Americans will have died
any many younger Americans will have reached voting age, and
it is vital--if our nation is to survive this crisis--that no
American be again denied a meaningful voice in our nation's
government.
6) Changing the majority required from two-thirds to three-
fifths accepts the practical reality that a sixty-percent
vote is a decisive, yet very difficult goal to attain.
Making changes must be difficult, to minimize risk of serious
errors--but change must not be impossible.
7) Placing this Amendment before the people for their approval
or rejection allows Congress to play an impartial role.
8) Intransigent refusal to give the people this vital choice at
this critical period would have the gravest of consequences.
9) Time and patience are running out.
10) Should bloody rebellion begin, with organized militias on the
one hand and loners with bombs on the other, there would be
grave danger of a coup by Pentagon officials, who might be
compelled to impose martial law. Such overt coercion might
be relaxed, and government handed over to civilian leaders--
or it might not. In such an unprecedented situation, almost
anything is possible, and all bets are off.
Is this what the Congress wants?
It should not need to be stated that putting the question to
the people for a vote does not determine the outcome of that
vote. Should the people decisively reject this Amendment, it
will prove that the time is not yet right. But should the
Amendment be decisively approved, we may begin an orderly
transition to a brighter future for America.
Epictetus expressed a universal truth, which applies to our
time and place in history, when he wrote:
"To the rational being only the irrational is unendurable,
but the rational is endurable" (Discourses, I,2).
We have shown that the present so-called government of the
United States is a de facto tyranny by a bureaucracy of impostors
and traitors--as those terms are defined by Webster's
Dictionary--a denial of rationality at even the basest level.
This tyranny must be annihilated--by peaceful means if at all
possible.
But if the self-serving bureaucrats in Washington prove to
be intransigent in protecting their ill-gotten gains of wealth
and power, the American people will be absolutely justified in
taking up arms--and waging a war to the death--to destroy once
and for all time the root cause of our nation's crisis.
We hope it will not come to war--but to paraphrase John
Parker, speaking to his Minutemen on the Lexington green on April
19. 1775, we must stand our ground, and not fire unless fired
upon...but if they mean to have a war, let it begin now.