These notes represent a few additional considerations in developing the Constitution of Halexandria and other such documents. There is often the assertion, for example, that any constitutional mandate would ideally utilize the best of an existing system, and to draw from the lessons of the past in order not to repeat the same old mistakes. One, therefore, does not necessarily want a carbon copy of the Constitution for the United States of America, and thus incur all the liabilities and baggage thereof -- including the degree to which it has been repeatedly violated [See, for example, The First Amendment, Privacy, 9-11-2001, Shredding the Magna Carta, Free Speech, and Enemy Combatants], or in which it has been legally modified, but on the basis of vested interests and in violation of the inalienable rights of individuals. In many respects, previous such documents should not be a strict guide, even if lessons learned from them in terms of what works and what doesn’t work can in fact be gleaned and incorporated in new constitutional sovereignty.
A constitution is a social-political compact. It must declare its intentions and purposes, define its operating structure, and embody its philosophical parameters. By definition, a constitution is “the body of fundamental laws, principles, or established precedents according to which a nation, state, or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.” An emphasis which appears to be often missing in other similar documents is the clear statement as to the philosophical principles upon which the compact is based. If a philosophical basis is included, then the interpretation of such a constitution can better address the relevant issues, instead of relying on semantics and precise wording. This might put a lot of lawyers out of work, but what’s a really good constitution for if not in achieving this noble goal!
The Constitution for the United States of America, for example, is derelict in just this area -- although it must be admitted that the Declaration of Independence and the Original Declaration of Independence do address the issue of principles. (Unfortunately the Declaration is not part of the Constitution, and thus the principles of the nation are not conveyed or codified with the same force as constitutional law.) It is essential that this be rectified in any future constitution, and that the principles of any constitutional organization be stated in the forefront of its constitution.
Key principles might include: “The foundation of the constitution recognizes the sovereign status of the individual.” “The constitution describes a union of sovereign individuals in a republic form of government, wherein a republic is defined as: 1) a nation, state, or other organization in which supreme power is held by the people, and 2) a society with equality between its members.”
There is also the issue of the type of individual a constitution recognizes. It might be, for example, preferable to avoid the word “citizen”, due to its political baggage, as well as eliminating such issues as dual citizenship and so forth. Some suggestions might include:
Dependent -- Any individual who is temporarily not: 1) sovereign, 2) an Associate 3) a Participant, or 4) a Diplomat of the republic; and therefore cannot enter into written or verbal contracts, or be bound by such contracts. All individuals (at birth, for example) are initially assumed to be dependents until they demonstrate an ability and willingness to become sovereign individuals. Any one may thereafter become dependent again for various reasons (welfare, senility, insanity, voting for a member of either the Democratic or Republican Parties, etceteras). Being a Dependent does not imply that the Republic is responsible for caring for the individual, but instead that the individual is simply not fully in charge of his or her own life.
Associate -- Any individual who is considered to be a full fledged sovereign individual based upon demonstration of competency before a jury of 12 Associates.
Participant -- Any Associate of the constitutional Republic who has assumed the responsibility of assisting in the governing of society by maintaining an awareness of the issues of the day, cooperating in the basic goals and purpose of the society, and voting. Each Participant is committed toward the betterment of humanity, and acting as active members in any one of several global humanitarian trusts.
Diplomat -- Any Participant of the Republic who has a limited authority to speak and act on behalf of the government.
Alien -- Any individual outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Participants and Diplomats, as envisioned above, are intended to come under the idea of the “body politic”, i.e. all individuals who wish to establish themselves as global citizens, enact and engage with humanitarian and social projects that are uplifting for all participants, to move effectively between nations on diplomatic missions with the degree of self-responsibility and self-determination that their acts and deeds are balanced and universally applicable. These are individuals who have “direct converse and guidance with their divine nature and source”, and who have joined others of like mind “to from a union of common purpose and structure.”
Expanding the range of the constitutional entities by including Associates and Dependents allows for a greater range of citizens under the banner, while simultaneously allowing for decreased, direct responsibilities. Someone actively involved in a republic might at some point retire, and become an Associate (or Dependent). Other individuals who wish to avail themselves of certain benefits of the Republic, and thus support it indirectly by their numbers, can also be a part of the organization, but in a less direct mode.
There might also be a limitation on associations of individuals within the organization, i.e.:
Marriages -- Any combination of two or more sovereign individuals (Associates, Participants, Diplomats, or any combination), which may or may not include Dependents, and where each sovereign individual has equal authority and equal equity within the marriage. A sovereign individual may enter into only one marriage (at a time), but said marriage may continue indefinitely as long as two or more of the sovereign individuals continue the marriage. This provides for what is also referred to as a line-marriage.
Partnerships -- Any combination of two of more sovereign individuals, each of whom have equal authority and equal equity within the Partnership. A sovereign individual may enter into more than one Partnership, and all Partnerships continue as long as two or more of the partners continue the Partnership. Partnerships are distinct from Marriages in that any sovereign individual can enter into more than one Partnership (whereas in a Marriage, they cannot), Partnerships are potentially much more limited, and specifically, Partnerships can not assume authority over Dependents.
(Both Marriages and Partnerships can maintain their status by allowing into their organization for a limited time (3 years maximum) “junior partners”. Such temporary status can be for the purpose of evaluating a new partner prior to granting equal equity and authority, but all such temporary expedients must be fully described in legal documents which describe the understanding or pre-nuptial and pre-partnering agreements. In Marriages, the status of Dependents must also be addressed in writing.)
Enclaves -- Any organization of two or more sovereign individuals, with or without dependents, who agree to additional limitations and self-selected laws and regulations under which they choose to live. Enclaves may contain within their limited jurisdictions, police powers -- but are limited in enforcement on non-Enclave members to exile from the Enclave’s jurisdiction.
Corporations -- All other groups of individuals, sovereign or otherwise.
Enclaves and Corporations are never assumed to be persons or individuals, nor of they entitled to the same rights of free speech, free association, voting, and so forth (e.g. the Bill of Rights); neither have any right to enter politics in any manner whatsoever; and in fact ultimately both exist at the pleasure of the constitutionally established government.
The purpose of enclaves is to allow groups to voluntarily restrict themselves further by laws which go beyond Common Law. This could include religious organizations with more or less interest in being ecclesiastical, or communities who wish to impose traffic rules and regulations, architectural control committees, and so forth. Enclaves would be required to provide full disclosure to all prospective and transient members within their jurisdiction as to all such restrictive laws and regulations prior to said member entering the limited jurisdiction of the Enclave. This clause simply recognizes that there are many people who restrict or limit their own sovereignty for their own reasons and purposes.
Any encouragement of such goals as “diversity within unity” must recognize others with similar humanitarian goals who may not agree with such basic thoughts as individuals “in direct communion with their own divinity”. Some, for example, might still recognize intermediaries. In effect, everyone is allowed their own covenant (contract) with their divine source however they wish to characterize or define that source and by whatever name they choose to refer to such source by.
Arguments have been put forth which suggest that a government does not need to legislate laws, and that furthermore, doesn’t need a judiciary because there would then be no need to adjudicate laws that don’t exist. However, any organization has laws (rules) and inevitably, these laws and/or rules will be modified or expanded in future years. The motivation for a constitution is to recognize this inevitability, and provide for a several means of nullifying any law, rule or regulation which does not meet the highest standards. (Trial by Jury is one time-tested and effective means of nullifying or limiting outdated or inappropriate laws.) It is also imperative that the constitutional laws predominate in challenges of later laws designed to reduce the fundamental, inalienable rights of its sovereign members. (I.e. if a statute violates the constitution, it is automatically invalid, and any attempt to enforce it should result in double the penalty attempting to be imposed being imposed instead upon the individual(s) attempting to violate the constitution.)
At some level, there is the need to establish a cognizable law form that is recognized by the international community, and that must accede to some body of rules in order that there be available Remedy and Recourse
This does not require a judiciary which is simply the old paradigm judges, but one of self-selected/agreed-to Arbitrators and randomly selected Jurors. By specifying that the power is in the hands of Arbitrators and Jurors, then one avoids the lack of justice in the old paradigm judiciary, and simultaneously allow for the inevitability of legal disputes. Such an arrangement also allows for Restorative Justice, where the victim’s needs and rights are adequately addressed, instead of merely a system of retribution and punishment.
There is also needed in any constitution a section which addresses very clearly the subject of total access to all forms of healing modalities, and that the repression of innovative (or just plain weird) medical applications be avoided at all costs. The essence of being a sovereign individual is the unabridged right to choose one’s poison... so to speak. It might be wise to give diplomatic immunities and/or ecclesiastical protection to every health practitioner in the form of making them a health minister, and thus immune from do-gooders intent upon “saving others from themselves”.
It might be politic to eliminate “taxes”, and instead levy a “royalty” or “licensing fee” on the basis that the science, technology, and resources (and disposal costs), being used by corporations belongs to the collective, and thus anyone using such “collective assets” should pay a percentage fee. This is also why being part of a marriage or partnership has a “tax advantage” -- albeit certain royalties or fees may still be applicable to the non-corporation concept. The key is that any organization is taxed, whenever one or more individuals work for other individual(s) -- i.e. there is an inequality in reward and work!
Another fundamental provision is that treaties with foreign sovereignties cannot be made which would then violate the Constitution -- which is currently the case in the United States of America and elsewhere.
The distinction between Associate, Participant and Diplomat is based on the concept that all individuals who have once demonstrated that they are responsible and self-sustaining members of society should have equal access to all the rights and responsibilities of living within a Common Law society. Simultaneously, the role of Participant and Diplomat transcends that of Associate in that the former assume some measure of compassion, tolerance, and concern for the diverse activities and for the constitutional governing of all individuals and Associates within the society of a particular Enclave.
Fundamentally, the Enclaves constitute Timocracies -- a government by the elite, but where all members of the society have an equal opportunity to become a member of the elite. The “elite” in this connection are those who have a sense of responsibility toward all individuals within the society of the Enclave. There is also the implied requirement that the “elite” must demonstrate such a sense of responsibility prior to becoming an elite.
Some might equate the Constitution with the UN Charter, and sovereign nations taking the role of Enclaves. The fundamental difference, however, is that the Constitution has considerably more “teeth” in it. Enclaves cannot claim national sovereignty in terms of violating the Constitution. And any individual or Citizen/member can always divest themselves from an Enclave. Importantly, the Constitution allows for Sovereign Individuals who are answerable to no Enclave other than their own.
Some attempts at writing a new constitution (such as the so-called “Texas Constitution”) have emphasized that the government is NOT allowed to have anything to do with education -- apparently based on the concept that governmental control of education is the worst possible scenario. But this view is somewhat short-sighted in that if the children and others coming on to the scene do not have knowledge or an understanding, for example, of the constitution, then what is the use of the so-called Education?
Alternatively, what is essential is that there is a minimum level of knowledge in education that is administered by the Republic, but that the government can under no circumstances LIMIT what is part of the educational process. This premise of never restricting the flow of information is essential as is the establishment of a minimum standard of what every sovereign individual should know and understand.
The positive argument is that an educated and fully informed citizenry is absolutely essential for all sovereign individuals within a Republic. Stupid and/or uninformed people can not rule anyone, let alone themselves. At the same time, a state dominated of financially influenced educational system is anathema to sovereign individuals and the longevity of a Republican form of government.
It is therefore essential for all sovereign individuals, citizens, as well as dependents, to be able to meet certain minimum state-imposed standards of knowledge and understanding in the areas of history, science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etceteras), mathematics (including Sacred Mathematics), law and economics (the latter two essential, but often ignored), physiology and psychology, Comparative Religions (no restriction on the study of knowledge of any kind!), reasoning, logic, and Discrimination -- including a full understanding, knowledge, and ability to apply the Constitution. At the same time, the state and all governments within it must be absolutely forbidden to limit, censor, or otherwise restrict the dissemination or education of any information, knowledge, understanding, speculation, ideas, wisdom, or any subject matter whatsoever.
This latter prohibition on the state is also binding upon all individuals, groups and organizations within the Republic in that no information or knowledge of any kind is to be withheld from being disseminated to any and every individual in the Republic.
The single sole exception to the above involves those military secrets deemed essential to the security of the collective of individuals or citizens of the Republic -- not necessarily the state or government itself -- and their preservation. Such designation of military secrecy can only be invoked by specific members of the state and their designees -- but must in all cases include the identification of said member(s) on all documents which specify the secrecy of the information (including documents describing the information). No military secrecy rules may be applied to information which is merely detrimental to the vested interests of individuals or groups (e.g. might be embarrassing), or which is deemed to be inappropriate to the alleged educational status of any individuals or groups within the Republic.
Now... With the above information serving as a basis, your homework assignment is to write a complete constitu...
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved [Feedback]