The USC Sucks, etcetera: Part 13 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Article XIII (The Rules of the League)


Altering the pact

Article XIII. Section 1.  Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to by the voice of the citizens of the several States, for as it was the voice of the citizens of the several States that ordained these articles as the league pact for the States of this Confederacy, neither the several State legislatures and governors, nor the united States in Congress assembled, shall have power to alter these articles in any way, for such power and authority is reserved solely to the citizens of the several States, who shall wield it by their voice at whatsoever time they see fit.

Once the New Articles of Confederation (NAC) have been installed as the Supreme Law of the land, those who have been deposed of their positions of power in the former national government, and those who were seeking such positions, will unite in an effort to amend or alter the NAC to either bring the Confederacy back to a national government or otherwise to consolidate power into a singular head which can act as a king or as a president exercising kingly authority over men.  These men will prefer to alter or amend the NAC by a Congressional vote or by a vote of the State legislatures, because both Congress and the State legislatures are smaller groups of people than the general populace, and it is easier to bribe with money or promises of power, benefit and gain the 540 or so members of Congress, or the State legislatures, than the entire population.  The NAC anticipates an immediate push for amendment or alteration by these people, but puts this right squarely in the hands of the people of the States, making it impossible for it to be corrupted through closed-door deals.  Thus, conspiring men will have to convince more than half of the American people that altering the NAC is in their best interest.  The chances of that happening are slim to none.

It is possible to transfer an already captured bird from a smaller bird cage to a larger one or from a larger bird cage to a smaller one, for the captured bird is already accustomed to being in a cage and, being confined, can be fairly easily corralled into the new more confining, or less confining, cage.  In like manner, it is possible to cause a people living under an oppressive government to accept the alteration of the government into a more oppressive, or less oppressive, form, for the people are already accustomed to living under an oppressive government, and more oppression or less oppression are just degrees of what they are already used to.  In other words, the situation hasn’t drastically changed, thus the behavior of the people won’t drastically change, either.  But when you free the bird entirely from the cage, allowing it to fly off into the wild blue yonder, you’ve drastically altered conditions and no amount of coaxing will get the bird back in a cage.  Once out, it’s gone.  Similarly, if a people go from an oppressive government to a free government, it is next to impossible to get them to choose of their own free will to go back into oppression.  Once they’ve been acclimated to freedom, the only way to get them back under your thumb is through force of arms.

The NAC establishes a free government, not merely a less oppressive one than the former national government.  For this reason the push to alter the NAC must come almost immediately after its passage, before the population has time to acclimate to the new free environment.  I suppose the threat of war, through an exterior invasion, will be used as a fearmongering tool to try to cause the people to alter the NAC so that a president and standing army can be allowed, perhaps under the false guise of a “temporary measure.”  Whatever the strategy, these efforts to alter must come soon after the installment of the NAC.  If they wait too long, the people will never be able to be tricked into giving up their freedom and liberties again.

This section, then, is a safeguard against the re-establishment of tyranny and oppression in America.

The rules of the club

Article XIII.

Section 2.  All of the fifty States of the previous union, which was formed under the United States Constitution, are invited to enter this league by sending authorized delegates to the gathering at Liberty Bell at the day and time which has been appointed to sign them, and such signing will enter them; but if any of these fifty States neglect to send delegates at that time, yet desire to be admitted into the league afterward, they shall be admitted by the voice of the citizens of their States, first, by the voice of Congress, second, and upon them sending authorized delegates to sign the pact, third, all within a year’s time.

Section 3.  Apart from the fifty States which were united under the United States Constitution, no foreign State or nation shall be admitted into this league, except by the voice of the citizens of the several States, and the voice of Congress, and the voice of the citizens of said foreign State or nation, all within a year’s time; and if the voice of all these is for admittance, the foreign State or nation shall send authorized delegates to sign the pact before the year’s time has expired, and thus shall be admitted; but no foreign State or nation shall be admitted that has a king over men, or that exerts kingly authority over them, or that in any way violates these articles.

Section 4.  No State shall be removed from this Confederacy, except by the voice of Congress and the voice of the citizens of the several States, all within a year’s time. Any State which has been removed from this league shall be considered a foreign State and treated as such; and if the removed State requests re-admittance, the third section of this article shall apply.

The Confederacy established by the NAC is a free league, of free States.  Any State can voluntarily enter the league, and voluntarily exit it, whenever they want.  Peaceful provisions are provided to that end, making a repeat of the Civil War, or War Between the States, highly unlikely.  However, owing that the league is to be of free States, oppressive ones that exercise kingly authority over their people, and also monarchies, are banned from it.  This Confederacy is not to be patterned after the United Nations, allowing all sorts of oppressive regimes in, but an exclusive club of free governments.  If any nation does not make the grade, they are barred from entering.  If any member State turns oppressive, they can be kicked out.  The NAC does not play favorites and no State is indispensable.

Installing the NAC

Once America has decided to install the NAC, the only text that needs to be altered are the dates listed in the Preamble and Conclusion,

Preamble

Whereas the Delegates of Fifty of the United States of America in Congress assembled at Liberty Bell, Independence National Historical Park, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen, and in the Two Hundred Thirty-Ninth Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain new articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the sovereign, free and independent States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia, in the words following, viz:

New articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia.

Conclusion

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord two thousand Sixteen, and in the two hundred Fortieth Year of the independence of America.

and also the listing of the States, according to which States choose to enter the pact.  Everything else can and should remain untouched, just as it is written now.  This allows for very easy installation, as whatever date chosen only needs to be one that occurs after the election and on a day and time that the Liberty Bell park is open to the public.

Peaceful government transitions codified

Article XIII. Section 5.  Recognizing that the Confederacy derives its powers from its constituent States, and that each State derives its Powers from its people, should the citizens of any of the member States of this Confederacy decide, by their voice, with or without the approval of their State government officials, to abolish the government of their State, or to remove their State from the Confederacy, or to revert their State to the previous form of government as a British Colony, or to alter their republican form of State government into some other form, this Confederacy shall acknowledge their decision as legitimate, valid, effective, final and binding, and shall consider them and their lands as no longer residing within the jurisdictional bounds of, and no longer part of, the Confederacy; and should they choose removal from the Confederacy, they shall be viewed as a free and independent State; and should they choose anarchism, they shall be viewed as a free and independent people and Territory; and should they choose to revert to British rule, they shall be viewed as part of Great Britain; and should they choose some other form of government, they shall be viewed as a foreign entity and nation.

The NAC includes the right to peacefully abolish, revert and replace, which is essentially the same text of the proposed amendment attached to the NAC, which amendment will allow the NAC to be installed.  As good a law as the NAC is, being far superior to the United States Constitution, or any other man-made law found throughout the world, this does not preclude the future existence of something even better, of ever greater wisdom, therefore the NAC provides for this contingency, too.

Final Conclusion of the 13 Parts

These thirteen essays adequately show the superiority of the New Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution, demonstrating to America that the Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of laws.  It certainly served its purposes for more than 200 years, and as far as man-made laws go, it was one of the most innovative, and far ahead of its time.  But it is an old man and it is time to put it to rest.  Nevertheless, the principles in the Constitution, which were not man-made, namely, the Bill of Rights, are carried over into the new plan (the NAC), for these were inspired of God, and must not be set aside.  And they have been expanded in the NAC, as if in an unabridged form.  Also, a few of the Constitutional innovations have been retained in the NAC.  But, other than that, the NAC is a new tool for a new millennium, to combat and eradicate a new group of tyrants and tyrannies, the march of which the Constitution has been unable to stop or even slow down.  But that is okay, because now there is the NAC, and it is fully armed and ready to deal with the current and future environments of tyranny.  So, let’s let go of the Constitution and replace it with the NAC.  Let’s let the NAC do its tyranny-destroying thing.  As it is unwise to enter a gunfight armed with only a knife, why should we fight the tyranny and oppression of today with a 200+ year law that the enemy has already figured out how to by-pass and corrupt?  That route only leads to defeat, slavery and totalitarianism.  The NAC offers an alternative future, one of victory, freedom and the destruction of tyranny.  It does so by offering a proper tool, one meet for the task at hand, even a modern tool for a modern problem, which, strangely enough, is really a set of exceedingly ancient principles, far older than the Constitution.  So the NAC is new only in the sense that we have never seen its like before, but in reality it is an older, extremely strong, street-wise man, who has been around the block more times than we can count, and the Constitution is the relatively new kid who is getting beat up by the neighborhood bullies.  The NAC man has returned from his lengthy walkabout and now sees and targets the bullies.  He’s ready and poised to kick some major bully butt.  Do we put forth our hand to hold the NAC back and say, “No.  Let the bullies continue to destroy the little kid.”  Of course not.  We pull up a chair, grab a bag of popcorn, and watch the action fly, cheering as the bullies get their comeuppance.

Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate. And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 4 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Marriage Sections


The Right to Travel

Before I get into the marriage sections, I want to address Section 3 of Article II, which says, in part:

…the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and to and from other countries, by any mode of conveyance whatsoever in which they desire to exercise their right to travel, without abridgment, regulation, restriction or license…

The right of travel is nearly non-existent in this country under the USC, though I happen to know a guy who has continually won in the courts each time the cops pull him over and find that he doesn’t have a license, but is merely traveling, and the cops now, when they pull him over, recognize him and just tell him to keep on traveling.  But that is in my area.  In your area, they may be quite adamant that there is not, nor ever was, any right to travel, but under the original Articles of Confederation, it was written right into it, though not as expressly as the NAC has it.  Therefore, the NAC is orders of magnitude better than the original Articles. Under the NAC, people are going to finally know what real freedom feels like…

NAC Article III. Section 1.

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State of this Confederacy, shall have power to abridge, regulate, or license, a man’s right to take a wife, for men shall always be free to marry wives, without restriction and without permission from ecclesiastical or secular authorities, but, for the resulting marriage, whether confarreatio, or coemptio in manum, or usus, or any other form, with or without manus, and with or without a vow, every State shall issue certificates upon presentment of statements or affidavits by the man and his wife, which shall certify the marriage and its form, and such certificates, if available, shall be used in all marriage controversies at law, which controversies shall be judged according to the marriage form and the covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations that were made and entered into by the persons involved.

This section ought to be considered a restoration, for in the beginning marriage was ordained unto man (and not unto woman) by God:

and again

verily I say unto you

that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God

for marriage is ordained of God unto man [not woman]

wherefore

it is lawful that he [man] should have one wife

and they twain shall be one flesh

and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation

and that it might be filled with the measure of man

according to his creation before the world was made

(D&C 49:15-17)

So, at the beginning of time, God gave to man a right to take a wife.  He (man) could do it under his own power and authority.  He didn’t need God’s permission, nor permission from other men, or from governments or anything.  This authority and right to take a wife was in him alone.

(Now, I will not explain in this post exactly what marriage is, and although I have written on this blog much about marriage, I have yet to tell what it is, and for those of you who have read my previous writings, don’t think you know what I teach from my previous writings, because these teachings are not there, but are yet to be published…)

Anyway, Section 1 restores this right and power and authority, which was had from the very beginning.  Another thing it restores is the power of manusManus existed from the beginning and was the only form of marriage practiced by man from the start.  Manus was the form given to men by God.  Later on, a new form, developed by man, came forth, which was marriage without manus.  As man had a right to marriage, he also had a right to the form of marriage he chose, therefore with or without manus were equally valid forms of marriage.  Up until quite recently, almost all marriage was assumed to be with manus, but there has been a radical shift in the laws and in the interpretations of the judges, and now all marriage is assumed to be without manus.  The LDS temple ceremony, however, is manus marriage, keeping the ancient form.  Thus, there is a huge contradiction, because the temple sealing is with manus but the civil portion of the ceremony is considered to be without manus.

Also anciently, all marriage was without a vow*, and all marriage was considered to be without a vow.  Taking a wife without a vow was the form of marriage God gave to man at the beginning, but, as man had a right, he later added a form of marriage with a vow.  When a man takes a wife with a vow, he vows to [fill in the blank].  When a man takes a wife without a vow, he doesn’t promise a thing.  At some point in history, marriage with vows became the norm and every marriage was considered, and still is, to be entered into with a vow (by the man).  Again, the LDS temple ceremony keeps the ancient form of marriage, and thus all temple marriage sealings are entered into by the man without a vow, yet the civil law considers that marriage as made with a vow (of monogamy, specifically) anyway.

The disharmony between the LDS temple ceremony and the civil law comes because the LDS Church requires a marriage license from the State before they will marry or seal people in the temple.  The marriage license is marriage by privilege, without manus and with an (assumed and unstated) vow (of monogamy).

The NAC, then, restores the right to marry, as well as the ancient forms of with manus and without a vow, but also keeps the more recent forms of without manus and with a vow.  In other words, men are given their full rights in marriage, and can decide what is best for them, or which form of marriage is best for them to enter into.  Currently, men do not have such a choice, but must choose only one form: without manus and with a vow.

(* The Nephites, although commanded by God not to take more than one wife, did not marry with a vow.  Those Nephites who engaged in polygamy broke God’s commandment, but did not commit adultery.)

No marriage license

The NAC forbids marriage licenses for marriage by right.  Notice that I wrote “marriage by right.”  The NAC does not prohibit “marriage by privilege.”  A marriage license is a marriage privilege, granted by the State.  It gives one permission to do something that otherwise would be illegal to do.  It can be granted and it can be revoked.  If a man wants to marry by privilege, he may still do so under the NAC, by paying the State some money and getting a marriage license.  But if he wants to marry by right, he needs no permission or license from any entity.  Perhaps you might wonder, “Why in the world would a man choose to marry by privilege if he can marry by right?”  Well, if the woman he wants to marry refuses to marry him unless he gets a marriage license (marriage by privilege) and he really wants this woman, he might do that.  Marriage by privilege, of course, means that you marry without manus and with a vow, and also that the State is the arbitrator in the case of divorce, etc.  So, the NAC will still allow marriage licenses.

The State certifies

Another restoration from the very beginning is the role of the State as certifying agent.  That’s right, in the very beginning, according to my understanding, the man entered into a marriage with manus and without a vow and whatever government he was under acknowledged his marriage as validly performed under his own authority.  The governments of the world, in the ancient world, were servants of the men in this regard.  They recognized that all men had power and authority in and of themselves from the very beginning to marry wives and recognized all such marriages as marriages.  They never did as States do today and refused to recognize this or that marriage because there was no marriage license.  Such nonsense, committed by the governments of today, is a usurpation of masculine authority, which has occurred over time until the States of today now totally control marriage and man has no more power or authority over it.

The NAC, then, restores these ancient orders by taking the usurped masculine powers from the State and giving it back to men.  The effect of this can only be that marriage will increase among men again, for many men are avoiding marriage because it is no longer beneficial to them.  It has become a raw deal, one in which the risks out way the benefits.  Once the NAC is installed, marriage will be a benefit and blessing to men again, and they will begin to marry again in droves, choosing whichever form they deem best for them.

Same-sex marriage (SSM)

What of same-sex marriage?  Well, the NAC doesn’t address same-sex marriage, except for this part:

Article X. Section 5.

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

Now, under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution did not allow plural marriages.  Under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution allows a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, to be married.  The U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, apparently still has much to say about which forms of marriage it permits, and which it doesn’t, without ever using the words “marry” or “marriage.”  The USC, then, is a magical document with magical powers beyond my comprehension.  But thank goodness the Supreme Court can comprehend such magical things!  Perhaps it is because they themselves are wizards performing some sort of magic?

The NAC, on the other hand, is not magical.  It takes a simplified approach.  It encodes heterosexual marriage as a right of man and does not seek to restrict that right in any way.  It also does not mention anything other than marriage by right.  Therefore, under the NAC, States are still free to permit SSM (by issuing a marriage license), or ban it altogether (by refusing to issue a marriage license); free to permit polygamy (by issuing a marriage license) or ban it (by refusing to issue a marriage license).  But they are not free to restrict in any way man’s right to heterosexual marriage and are required to recognize such marriages, as governments did anciently.

So, the recent decision of the Supreme Court on SSM is null and void under the NAC, meaning that SSM will become a State’s matter, each State deciding whether they will permit (license) SSM or not.

Divorce under the NAC

The NAC changes the game for divorce, too, at least for manus marriages:

Article III. Section 3.

No State shall have power to divorce men who exercise their right to marry wives with manus, from their wives, nor shall the right and power of such men to issue a writ of divorcement, on their own authority, be abridged or regulated in any way, and such writs shall be binding and valid and final and unalterable decrees in the eyes of the law, so that the law shall view a wife so divorced as loosed from the law of her husband.

This is yet another restoration, for anciently there was no power (outside of the man himself) to divorce a man who married with manus, from his wife.  Only he (the man) had power to divorce, using the same power he used to marry: his own.  Thus, the power to divorce wives was always in men from the beginning.  When Moses allowed men to issue bills of divorcement, he did not confer any more authority than men already had.  He just gave them divine permission to use their rights, power and authority in this way.

Now, under the USC, there is an unfavorable environment for men to marry.  Why?  Because if they marry by privilege with a marriage license, without manus and with a vow, and the marriage goes south, they can lose their house, their money, their kids and even their liberty (jail time).  The risks far out way the benefits of current marriage practices under the USC and many men are walking away.  The NAC, though, creates a favorable environment for men to marry, because they not only get to set all the terms of the marriage from the get-go, as men did anciently, but also all the terms of the divorce, even controlling whether a divorce can happen or not.  This minimizes, or altogether eliminates, risk and gives men who marry by right (with manus) only benefits.  Men will not walk away from such marriage, but will rush into it, reversing all current marriage and divorce trends.  New marriage statistics will shoot sky-high and divorce statistics will become nearly non-existent, under the NAC.

State divorces still can happen

The NAC doesn’t speak on other forms of divorce.  A man is still free to marry by privilege and go through the courts for a divorce and lose everything.  The NAC doesn’t say you can’t sell yourself to the State and then get dragged through the mud by a wife wanting a divorce.  Some men are masochists by nature, so the NAC leaves intact all these other forms and merely gives men more choices, while still allowing the masochists their fun.

Conferral of citizenship by manus

Article XII. Section 2.

Men who are natural-born citizens of any State, that marry wives by right, with manus, shall have power to confer naturalized citizenship upon their wives, provided a wife first passes an English proficiency test and enters into a covenant to obey, honor and sustain the laws of the State of which her husband is a resident, both of which shall be administered by the State of which her husband is a resident; and such men shall naturalize their wives by issuing a writ of citizenship, which writ shall be certified by the State of which her husband is a resident, which certified writ shall be binding and valid in the eyes of the law.

This also is a restoration, for this power existed in olden days and in ancient times.  Thus the NAC returns these stolen powers and rights back to the men and codifies them.  All of these things, taken together, rearrange the centers of power found in the national and State governments, creating a new center of power and jurisdiction, held by men, which really isn’t a new jurisdiction, but an old jurisdiction, for men always held these rights and powers and jurisdictions, in ancient times and from the beginning.

This stuff is in the NAC because I wrote it with a view of the restoration of all things.  It may not seem readily apparent just how important these things are, but their effect will be huge in both shackling the State, re-empowering the people and in furthering the restoration of all things.

Conclusion

The marriage sections of the NAC, I suppose, will be controversial, but they need not be, for they do not force change in current practices, merely adding ancient practices to the modern ones, giving people many more options.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 3 of an Open Debate—USC 4th-8th,13th Amendments vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.9-2.24


An awful lot of stuff to go over in this one…

USC Amendment IV

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.

 NAC Article II, Section 2.9

(9) to abolish the abomination of general warrants forever, the right of the people to be secure and private in their persons, houses, papers, data, metadata, communications, and all other effects, whether invisible, intangible or otherwise, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but from a judge, upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized;

NAC Article II, Section 2.10

 (10) the right of grand juries to file presentments shall not be abridged or regulated;

USC Amendment V

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 offence 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.

NAC Article II, Section 2.11-2.15

(11) 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, air or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

(12) no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

(13) the right to remain silent shall not be violated, and shall be self-executing, being claimed merely by refusing to speak or communicate, and no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself nor to communicate in any way;

(14) no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

(15) private property shall not be taken for public use;

NAC Article II, Section 2.16

(16) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed to be innocent, until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, and the government shall have the burden of proof, not the accused;

USC Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

NAC Article II, Section 2.17-2.19

(17) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

(18) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

(19) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, but there shall be no compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, neither for the accused nor for the prosecution, for the conscription of witnesses shall be abolished forever;

NAC Article II, Section 2.20

(20) the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended;

USC Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

NAC Article II, Section 2.21

(21) in suits at common law, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of this Confederacy, than according to the rules of the common law;

USC Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

NAC Article II, Section 2.22

(22) excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

USC Amendment XIII

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

NAC Article II, Section 2.23

(23) as it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, slavery and involuntary servitude shall not exist within any of these United States nor within any place subject to any of their jurisdictions;

NAC Article II, Section 2.24

(24) the right of the people to nullify a law by their voice shall not be abridged;

Okay, so here I go…

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.9 vs. USC’s 4th Amendment

Section 2.9 restores both the intent of the 4th Amendment and corrects its deficiencies.  The intent is included as “to abolish the abomination of general warrants forever.”  Had that wording been in the 4th Amendment, we wouldn’t have general warrants today, yet as everyone should now know, they are still being issued.  Deficiency number one is corrected by the wording: “data, metadata, communications, and all other effects, whether invisible, intangible or otherwise.”  Basically, that covers everything, making absolutely no room to wiggle around the restriction.  Deficiency number two is corrected by the wording, “but from a judge”.  Requiring an unbiased judge to be the one that decides what is or is not probable cause does away with the current tyrannical practice which allows biased people to decide the same.  The NAC’s wording comes out the winner on this one.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.10 vs. USC’s nothing

The USC has nothing on this.  Current practice removes the right of grand juries to file presentments.  The NAC restores it.  Why is that important?  Because grand juries have the power to root out corruption in all levels of government, by filing presentments.  Take away this right, and government corruption can thrive unchecked.  So, the NAC re-empowers grand juries, making sure that the new government established by the NAC, stays just as squeaky clean as the day it is born.  Under the NAC, government corruption can and will be targeted and destroyed by grand juries.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.11-2.15 vs. USC’s 5th Amendment

Section 2.11-2.12 is almost identical to the wording in the 5th Amendment.  But Section 2.13 expands the Amendment’s wording, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, into a self-executing right to remain silent.  This, then, is the Miranda right made self-executing.  It is kind of retarded to say that you must expressly state that you are going to exercise your right to remain silent before you are considered exercising your right to remain silent by remaining silent.  So the NAC corrects this lunacy.  Section 2.14 has the same wording as the 5th Amendment.  But Section 2.15 alters things quite a bit by leaving off the words, “without just compensation.”  What does this do?  It eliminates eminent domain.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.16 vs. USC’s nothing

Hear about all those university students being accused and presumed to be guilty before being proven innocent?  Well, that is the future we are heading into.  That is what is being planned and worked toward.  That is what tyrants want for us.  The NAC nips this trend in the bud before it really gets going.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.17-2.19 vs. USC’s 6th Amendment

Section 2.17-2.18 is more or less the same as the 6th Amendment, but Section 2.19 makes a very big change by abolishing the conscription of witnesses, for both prosecution and defense.  In effect it does the opposite that the 6th Amendment does, for the 6th Amendment allows the defense to have the same compulsory power that the prosecution has.  But, as such compulsory power is intrinsically evil, the NAC does away with this abomination altogether.  This shows, yet again, that the NAC is superior to the U.S. Constitution in every single particular.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.20 vs. USC’s Art.I.Sec.9.Para.2

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution says the following:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 2.20, has the same wording, but leaves off the exception.  Also, even foreigners have access to this privilege:

This Confederacy is also created to ensure that that principle of freedom, which maintains rights and privileges, which is justifiable before God, and which belongs to all mankind, be befriended, be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, citizens and foreigners alike, and be supported throughout the United States.

What would this do to the current practice of indefinitely detaining “illegal combatants”?  Like I previously stated on this blog, the NAC completely destroys tyranny.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.21-2.23 vs. USC’s 7th, 8th and 13th Amendments

Section 2.21 is essentially the same as the 7th Amendment, except it leaves off the wording, “where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.”  Section 2.22 is precisely the same as the 8th Amendment.  Section 2.23 is essentially the same as the 13th Amendment.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.24 vs. USC’s nothing

Now, this Section 2.24 is a doozy.  A DOOZY.  The right to nullify a law by the voice of the people is such a gigantic power, that this little bit here alone, once read by the powers that be, will give them nightmares and they will use every means within their power to stop the NAC from becoming the supreme law of the land.  This allows the people to nullify taxes (!) and anything else they think is wrong!  Simply put, this section says that ultimately, the people are the ones in control, and no law the majority disagrees with can oppress the people, for they have the final say in all matters.  The tyranny of the shrill minority cannot oppress the majority because of this section.

Conclusion

These sections of the NAC, (listed here and also in the first two parts of this series), contain “the constitution of the land” established by the Lord.  The constitution of the land, spoken of in the revelations, is the Bill of Rights, as I wrote 8 years ago.  (See What the Lord has said about the Constitution?)  The NAC includes the Bill of Rights, but corrects them and fully restores them, and adds other rights which fully empower the people against any and all tyranny that might show its head in the new Confederacy.  So, the installation of the NAC does not destroy the constitution of the land, but actually more fully establishes it.  The NAC, then, is essentially, a sort of new Title of Liberty.

In the next installment of this series, I will move on to Article III of the NAC.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 2 of an Open Debate—USC 3rd & 1st Amendments vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.4-2.8


USC Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

NAC Article II, Section 2.4

(4) no person or thing shall be quartered or installed in any house without the consent of the owner, nor shall any device or technology be used to spy, eavesdrop or intrude the senses remotely upon the people;

USC Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NAC Article II, Section 2.5-2.8

(5) there shall be no law against a man’s belief, nor any law which shall bring men on to unequal grounds, but a man shall be judged and punished only for the crimes which he has done, even for his infringement upon the rights and liberties of others;

(6) no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be made, nor any prohibiting or regulating the free practice thereof;

(7) that censorship by government and its officials upon the private sector be abolished forever, no law abridging or regulating the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be made;

(8) the rights of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and for redemption, shall not be abridged or regulated, and all such importunities shall be heard and investigated for merit speedily, and if found to have merit, shall be addressed according to the amount of damages which have been sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property;

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.4 vs. USC’s 3rd Amendment

The 3rd Amendment was to stop the government from putting eyes and ears via soldiers in the people’s houses, to learn who was pro-government and who was anti-government.  It performed its function when it was first written, but technology has outpaced its words.  The government no longer needs to put soldiers in a person’s house to find out what people are saying and doing in their homes.  They’ve got remote devices that can do this.  So, the 3d Amendment is, essentially, useless as it is currently written.  Nevertheless, the principle or reason for its existence is still very important.

Section 2.4 of the NAC Article II re-words the principle given in the 3rd Amendment, so that it actually has power to stop the government from snooping in people’s houses.  The government must, at all times, be completely in the dark as to what the heck people are saying and doing in their own homes, or how they feel or think about the government.  Remember the Zoramites?

And it came to pass that after the more popular part of the Zoramites had consulted together concerning the words which had been preached unto them, they were angry because of the word, for it did destroy their craft; therefore they would not hearken unto the words.

And they sent and gathered together throughout all the land all the people, and consulted with them concerning the words which had been spoken.

Now their rulers and their priests and their teachers did not let the people know concerning their desires; therefore they found out privily the minds of all the people.

And it came to pass that after they had found out the minds of all the people, those who were in favor of the words which had been spoken by Alma and his brethren were cast out of the land; and they were many; and they came over also into the land of Jershon.  (Alma 35:3-6)

Technology has emasculated the power of the 3rd Amendment, but Section 2.4 is fully empowered to deal with technology.  The government is shackled by it.  The Constitution fully fails on this one and the NAC comes out the clear winner.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.5 vs. USC’s nothing

Under the Constitution we get hate crimes: people punished not only for their crimes, but also because they held certain beliefs while they did their crimes.  Under the NAC, we just get crimes.  The criminal can believe what he wants.  The NAC only cares about the crime.  (As should all the other laws.)  Under the NAC, there could be no such thing as a hate crime, only crime.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.6 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment

There is not much difference between Section 2.6 and the 1st Amendment.  Except that the word “exercise” is replaced with the word “practice” and the word “regulated” is inserted.  And also except that those minor word changes fully stop the government from prohibiting a person from practicing their religion, or regulating that practice in any way.  You know, like the current regulation that the government does today, such as stopping Mormons from practicing their religion in taking plural wives?  So, Section 2.6 would actually allow Mormons to fully practice D&C 132, and any and all other revelatory practices that may come, such as animal sacrifice.  (Remember, that practice is supposed to be coming back as a part of the Restoration.)  Just a few minor word changes that do nothing much, except to allow God’s people to obey His commandments.

So, the Constitution fails on this one, too.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.7 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment

Again, there is not much difference between Section 2.7 and the 1st Amendment, except for the addition of the words, “that censorship by government and its officials upon the private sector be abolished forever.”  Why would those additional words be so important?  Because they explain who is being prohibited.  The prohibition is not to stop the private sector from speaking their minds, nor from censoring their own privately published publications; no, it is solely to stop GOVERNMENT from censoring the private sector.  That changes everything, doesn’t it?

But, under the Constitution, and under the 1st Amendment, since the entity being prohibited is not stated there, we get all sorts of governmental powers being employed to stop people and private organizations from speaking their minds and writing what they want, or from censoring or not censoring their own publications.  So, the NAC wins again.  Under the NAC, government can’t censor the private sector in any way.  No regulation, whatsoever.  That is the NAC standard.  It shackles the government and frees the people.  People then, are free to censor their own publications, and also to speak their minds, even if it is against the government.  Now, that is true freedom.  The Constitution fails and the NAC wins.  Again.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.8 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment

Section 2.8 adds a whole bunch of words that basically expand the right to petition into a right to get the government to actually do something, if the petition has merit.  Under the 1st Amendment, sure, you can petition all you want, but the government doesn’t have to do a darn thing.  Not even do an investigation.  Which would you prefer?  A right to merely petition, or a right to petition and get an investigation started, and if there is merit, get something done?  The Constitution fails, yet again.

In conclusion

The list of rights given in Section 2.4-2.8 covers government snooping, government attaching additional penalties to crimes because of a criminal’s belief, government stopping people from practicing their religion, government censorship, and government not correcting grievances.  This NAC section takes these issues and fully deals with them.  The Constitution does not.

Both this post and the previous one prove that the U.S. Constitution is insufficient to deal with the tyrants currently ruling over America today.  And what does the Lord say about when the wicked rule?

I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.  (D&C 98:8-9)

The NAC, on the other hand, both empowers the people with their full rights, and also shackles the government, much more fully than the Bill of Rights does.  The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as an after thought.  The nationalists that wrote the Constitution were against the Bill of Rights.  They didn’t think one was needed.  But the federalists won the day and got these governmental restrictions added.  Thank the Lord that they did.  But the Bill of Rights, as good as they are, are still not good enough.  They are mere abridgments of the full rights of man.  The NAC  corrects this deficiency and lists the full rights.  This allows the government to be fully shackled, so that tyranny cannot even get a toe in.  The NAC is one of those laws that the Lord referred to, which makes the people free.  It is superior to the Constitution because, under the NAC, there can be no rulers, only servants.  Thus, there can be no wicked ruling under the NAC.

I will go over other NAC sections in future posts.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 1 of an Open Debate—USC 2nd Amendment vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3


USC Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

(1) as a well-armed populace, skilled in the use of all weapons, is essential for the security of the United States—in order to wage warfare against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that should threaten any of their rights—the right of the people to make, keep, bear and carry all manner of weapons of every kind, openly or concealed, shall not be infringed nor regulated;

(2) all men shall be justified in defending themselves, their wives, their children, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their homes, their lands, their country, their government, their rights, their privileges, their liberties, their religion and their all, and the all of their neighbors, even unto bloodshed, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded;

(3) because of the extreme danger posed to liberty, there shall be no standing army in times of peace, and military conscription shall be abolished forever;

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.1 vs. USC’s 2nd Amendment

Sec.2.1 creates a super-armed society with no regulation by any branch of government.  No permits or licenses can be required of the people.  They are unrestricted in all ways.  They can even make their own weapons.  Sec.2.1 covers every kind of weapon, including firearms and swords and everything else.  The purpose of this right is given as warfare, both to enemies foreign and domestic, to protect all the other rights of the people.

The 2nd Amendment creates a partially armed society, regulated by the Federal and State governments.  You need permits and licenses.  You are denied access to certain types of weapons and certain types of ammunition.  You cannot make your own weapons without permission and regulation.  The 2nd Amendment only covers firearms, not swords, so that no one can go around bearing a sharpened sword, etc.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is debated, some believing it is only to allow people to hunt, and others believing it is just for self-defense, and others believing it is for warfare.

Under the 2nd Amendment, the police state thrives.  Jack-booted thugs can and do regularly enter into homes in unannounced raids.  An agenda of gun control and regulation is promoted, with the end goal of disarming the people, all except for the police and other governmental authorities.  People actually do have their weapons (private property) routinely confiscated.  (Remember Katrina?)  People are also taught to rely upon the police for protection.  And criminals, who go after the weak and unarmed, are able to perform all manner of crimes.  All of this makes the 2nd Amendment extremely weak in its protections.

On the other hand, the super-armed society created by Sec.2.1 (and Sec.2.2) entirely does away with the police state.  Literally everyone is armed, or assumed to be armed, to the teeth.  The government is completely in the dark as to what weapons the people have, how many weapons they have, how much ammo they have, etc.  The people are free to conceal their weapons on their person, therefore, the only way to know is when they are bearing weapons openly, but that is not an accurate measurement, as a person may also have additional concealed weapons.  This unknown variable creates an environment unfavorable to a police state, and also to other types of criminals.  Simply put, the government authorities must at all times assume they are outmanned and outgunned by the citizens that surround them.  Everyone, essentially, becomes a potential threat with no clear advantage to the police state, because citizens live everywhere and thus, surround all the cops.  The authority of the police state is one of intimidation, the firearms of the police being a perceived threat.  “Do what I say or this firearm you see at my side is going to come out and point at you.”  But a super-armed society is not intimidated, neither by police nor by criminals.  On the contrary, a super-armed society intimidates all police and also all criminals.

Thus, crime increases under the 2nd Amendment, with a corresponding increase in the police state, to deal with all the crime, whereas crime will decrease and almost entirely be eliminated under Sec.2.1, with a corresponding decrease in the police state, until the police state disappears altogether.

In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment can be considered as an abridgment of the real weapons right.  It is better than nothing, but still falls short of the actual right.  Whereas Sec.2.1 is a full restoration of the weapons right held by the ancient people of this land, and also by those who lived at the beginning of time.  The restoration of this right fully secures the land from tyranny, both from non-governmental and governmental criminals.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.2 vs. USC’s nothing

That’s right, the USC has nothing in it for defense.  There is no right to defense in the United States Constitution, whatsoever.  Nevertheless, apart from the USC, there are federal and State laws that put forth a right of women to defend themselves from other women, and from men, and that put forth a right of men to defend themselves from other men, but not from women.

In fact, if any woman attacks a man, hitting him, slapping him, pulling his hair, spitting on him, kicking him, pushing him, throwing his property, verbally insulting him, destroying his property, and so on, even publicly, first of all, no one would help the man out (not even off-duty cops), secondly, the men in the area would think the man was a wimp, allowing himself to get beaten up by a girl, and third, some of the women in the area would cheer, and all of the women would think that the man had the beating coming to him and that he must be at fault (even though they have no idea of the circumstances.)

But if that man were to attempt to defend himself against her, even if it was only to restrain her from hitting him again, all the men in the area who are what are known as white knights would immediately jump to the woman’s defense and start pounding on the man, because of the rule they were taught by their single, or separated or divorced mothers, (and even some of their fathers), namely, that it is always wrong to hit a woman.  He defending himself against her attack would cause all to view him as a monster and as “not a man.”  Should the cops be called, they would arrest him, and not her, even though she attacked him and he only defended himself, and he would be the one going to jail.  Thus, not only society says that a man does not have a right to defend himself against a woman, but also the law says so.  Think I’m wrong?  Watch this:

Notice that in the video the off-duty cop didn’t help him.  Also notice that the psychology professor says, “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”

Now, in olden times and more particularly in ancient times (and I am writing here according to my understanding), a man had a right to defend himself against all persons, even women.  Not only did he have a right to defend his person, but also his honor, against attacks, be they verbal or physical.  Thus, when a man was verbally insulted or abused, and I don’t mean an argument or difference of opinion or a debate, but when words were used to insult and abuse the man, the man felt pain, for his honor was under a humiliating attack and thus the insults were considered fighting words.  In other words, although only words were used, it was nevertheless considered a fight.  Such a man had three options.  If he were a Christian saint, then he might simply suffer the persecution (what we today would call harassment) and just turn the other cheek, and no matter how many words he was afflicted with, he would not retaliate in kind.  Nevertheless, he had the right to defend his honor, and his second option was to retaliate in kind, afflicting verbal insults upon the attacker, so that his enemy would become humiliated, too, and thus, he might “win the fight” by getting the public observers to side with him as the winner.  But there was also a third option, and that was to take it to the next level, and to physically stop the attacker from continuing to insult and abuse him verbally.  This was perfectly acceptable in the ancient world, and also in olden times, because if a man was so brash as to insult another man, then he had to be able to deal with the consequences of his actions, which might lead to a physical altercation, according to the right of the man attacked to defend himself and his honor.  In other words, the right of a man to defend his honor from verbal abuse, even physically, was universally recognized.  This was the prerogative of a man.

Anciently (and also in olden times), it was unmanly for a man to allow another man to verbally abuse him, without defending oneself, either verbally or physically.  Thus, when insults were thrown about by men, it might lead to a duel of pistols or a clash of swords, to the wounding or death of one of them, for a man’s honor was everything to him and it was to be defended, at all cost.  But over time, pistol duels were outlawed, as well as gunfights and sword fights.  Now, all that is left, legally, is fisticuffs, and even that comes with a penalty from the law.

Anciently, if any woman were to verbally assault a man’s honor, insulting and abusing him with words, she “crossed the line” into man’s territory, for women were to act as women and men were to act as men.  Men could insult a man, and then they would have to face the consequences, but women were not expected or allowed to act as men and insult men, but if they did, they were always treated with the very same treatment that other men received, except with one difference.  This similar treatment of women, by men, when the women acted as men, put a permanent stop to all women abusing men, either verbally or physically.

It is a universal fact that men are mightier in every way than women.  An average man put into a fair fight with an average woman, and neither of them pulling their punches, would result in either the critical wounding or death of the female.  All females crumple under male power.  The Hollywood myth of the dominant, strong female that can kick a man’s butt is merely a clever fiction meant to deceive the masses.  You could put 50 females in a line, each one facing that man in a fair fist fight, and that man would destroy each and every female, from the first to the last.  The male body and his testosterone fueled muscles gives almost god-like strength to him, or at least, that is what it seems like to any female who has ever been hit hard by a male.  All females, once hit hard by a male, cease their bickering.

Now, the ancients knew this, and they knew that male strength is much too powerful to be used in its full capacity, upon females, as it was used upon male antagonists, but they also knew that unless a woman is checked by male power, she would continue to verbally and physically assault and abuse men, for this is the nature of unchecked women.  So, the ancient solution was to use the closed hand (the fist) against males and the open hand (the palm slap) against women.  The muscles on the palm of the hand softened the blow, so that even though the slap was delivered in a hard manner, so as to make a point, it was not enough to destroy the woman.  To the woman on the receiving end, it still felt like a brick wall had fallen on top of her, and the realization that this was only a slap, caused every woman to respect, submit to, and not fight, male power and authority.  In other words, the ancient women, so checked, fully respected the men around them, once they felt just what kind of god-like power and strength God had endowed to the males of the species.

Now, this was the way of the ancients, according to their right of defense, and this practice created peace between the sexes, for the women, once checked, submitted to the men and did not fight them, and the men, for their part, did not initiate much violence towards women, because their women were mostly submissive.  Violence towards men by women was virtually non-existent, and the little insulting words thrown about by women were quickly stopped by this hard slapping check by the men.  This was, for the most part, the extent of the domestic violence.

Domestic violence, however, in modern times, is widespread.  Women hide behind, and promote, the false teaching of “men should never hit women” in order to get away with hitting and otherwise abusing men.  And then the same statistics show up, namely, that women initiate the lion’s share of the violence and arguments and verbal abuse, except that they are never checked, because the law will throw a man into jail if he makes the attempt to put his woman in her place.  This causes pent up anger in the emasculated males, as the abuse continues, until in some males, instead of a checking slap that would have put an abrupt end to the female-initiated violence, we get an explosive reaction that destroys the female.  In other words, the males that do such violence actually end up looking upon these women as fully male and so exert full male power at them, destroying them.

Now, I will not expound the heart of the matter in this post, for that is not the topic.  Suffice it to say that devilish forces have removed the ancient rights of men to defend themselves and their honor from all persons, including from women, and thus, in this emasculated state, the prophecy of Isaiah is brought to pass:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.  (Isaiah 3:12)

Thus, the devil has turned the ancient order upside down.  But the NAC turns it right-side up again, through restoration, by restoring the ancient rights of man to defend himself from all persons.

From all persons

Remember those jack-booted thugs dressed in the garb of the State’s authority?  Well, Sec.2.2 allows citizens to defend themselves and their property, too, against all those unannounced raids.  Instead of a man opening fire on DEA agents raiding his house and then going to prison, the man would be set free, for he was merely exercising his right.  This curtails all unlawful encroachments, no matter where they originate.  Men are re-empowered to defend their all, against all, and the police state suddenly cowers before all the masculine power the State stole from the men.  Raids will stop.  Girlfriends and wives destroying a man’s property because they are upset with him, without any consequences, will stop.  Even conflict in general will largely cease, because a super-armed society in conjunction with the right to defend creates a powder-keg of masculine power that is unfavorable to conflict.  In other words, civility becomes the societal law, because any conflict can potentially escalate into great bodily harm or even death.  Contentious persons, of both sexes, will cease their contention quite rapidly, or be eliminated.  It just isn’t wise to be contentious in such a society.

Bad cops also will leave the police force, or never enter it to begin with.  Cops need to be extra kind and polite and considerate and careful not to trample on people’s rights when dealing with super-armed citizens who have a right to defend their all against all persons from encroachments.  Any infringement by a cop upon a citizen may not make it to the judge.  This will cause only the manliest and pleasantest of men to take the position of police officer, because of the unfavorable environment to nervous and contentious men.  A cop’s main job in such an environment would be to show up and protect the nabbed criminal from the citizens who have caught him in the act of the crime and have him pinned down at gun or sword point.  The citizens themselves would be a sort of unofficial police force, for they are empowered to protect the all of their neighbors, too.

Abortion

A man can protect his all under Sec.2.2.  This may be interpreted to include his unborn fetuses.  NAC Article X., Section 5 reads:

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

This negates Roe vs. Wade and makes the legality of abortion a States issue.  Nevertheless, Section 10 of the same Article says,

These articles of Confederation, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united States in Congress assembled, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws or Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, the States will be bound to the NAC.  Sec. 2.2 in conjunction with Article III. Section 2 may make a case for permission from the father being necessary before an abortion can be legally performed:

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State, shall have power to raise up a king over men, nor to exert kingly authority over them or their house, for it is not right to esteem one flesh above another, or that one man shall think himself above another, but every man alone shall bear rule in his own house; and as that which is governed by law is also preserved by law, whereas that which breaks a law, and abides not by law, but seeks to become a law unto itself, cannot be preserved by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment, every man shall have power to set his house in order, having his children and house in subjection to him alone with all gravity, even as unto a king, according to the bounds and conditions of his law, that this shall be a land of liberty, and that every man shall enjoy his rights and privileges alike, and that every man shall set in order his family, and that every man shall bear his part.

Certainly that fetus could be considered part of the “all” of a man, and also part of his family.  These things will be worked out in the courts, but the NAC provides a legal basis for the reproductive right of the father to extend its manly protection over his unborn offspring. And if the courts rule in this very way, that the father’s right to defend his all extends to his fetuses, then all men in this country can be empowered to save all these children, regardless of the legality of abortion in any State.  Additionally, even if a woman tries to circumvent the law’s requirement of a father’s permission for abortion, by going to an illegal clinic, the father is still empowered to defend that unborn life, his all, even unto bloodshed, if you get my drift.  This will create a very unfavorable environment for illegal abortion practitioners, as they may be faced with an irate and fully armed father seeking to protect his unborn young.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.3 vs. USC’s nothing

Once again, the Constitution comes up flat.  The USC allows for a standing army.  And for military conscription.  But the NAC disallows both.

Now, it may not be readily apparent just how important these three items are (Section 2.1-2.3) but together, they put a shackle on the State and any would-be tyrants in it.  Despots and dictators and would-be tyrants need some things in order to tyrannize a populace.  They need a standing army during peacetime.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need military conscription, so as to rapidly expand their army by forcing men to fight for them.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the populace either fully disarmed or mostly disarmed, or at least regulated to the point where they could fully disarm them at some point through such regulations.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the men, representing the masculine power of the population, to be emasculated to the point that they can no longer defend themselves, legally, against anyone, but must rely upon the police and other armed State officials, for their defense and protection.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need to have a police state in place, to intimidate and threaten the populace into submission.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.

So, the USC supports tyranny, or allows it to flourish, while the NAC destroys it.  Just this little bit of the NAC proves that the NAC is superior in every way to the USC, but I will go over other NAC sections in future posts.  Feel free to disagree or debate on any point mentioned in this post.  This is, after all, an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment


An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to peacefully abolish the Constitution, to peacefully revert to the Articles of Confederation, and to peacefully replace the Constitution with some other form of government, shall not be abridged. Each state shall allow its citizens to place a measure to abolish the Constitution, or a measure to replace the Constitution, on any state ballot, according to prescribed state laws and rules. Where no such laws and rules exist, a state shall create the same, so that its citizens may exercise these rights within one year of passage of this amendment.

In any given year in which the citizens of a majority of the states vote in favor of abolishment, Constitutional authority and jurisdiction shall be immediately revoked in said majority states. Those majority states which are mentioned in the Articles of Confederation shall revert to it, while those majority states not mentioned in it shall be free and independent. If the vote is, instead, to replace the Constitution with some other form of government, all the aforementioned majority states shall immediately be bound by the newly adopted form. In either case, the minority states shall no longer be bound by Constitutional authority and jurisdiction, but shall be free and independent, unless mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, in which case they shall revert to the former form of government.

The above proposed amendment allows Americans to exercise the rights to peacefully abolish their government, to peacefully revert to a former government, and to peacefully replace their current government with some other form. It takes its authority from the Declaration of Independence. That document asserts these very rights, but without the peaceful adjective, so that men must exercise these rights by bloodshed and force of arms. A more enlightened way of doing this is through the relatively peaceful means of ballot voting. The effect, in either case, is the same, except that in the peaceful latter case, nobody dies or is physically harmed in any way. Should any future generation of Americans feel the need to exercise their rights to abolish, revert or replace, this amendment will allow them to do it without loss of life or limb.

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Background on this post

My recent comment about the Josephite restorer bringing back the Articles of Confederation had me wondering about how this might be accomplished. One idea I had was that he could possibly introduce a Constitutional amendment, that would actually pass, which would allow a peaceful transition from the present Constitution to a new, revised (perfected) set of Articles of Confederation, authored by himself. As I wondered about this, I decided to try my hand at both re-writing the Articles of Confederation, so as to perfect them, and also at writing an amendment that would allow the smooth transition. This post contains my “proposed amendment.” The notes I took for The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) might be put up later, once I consolidate them into a single cohesive document. Feel free, anyone, to take this amendment, modify it as you please, and run with it. Who knows? Maybe the Josephite isn’t needed, after all, to accomplish this part of the task.

Note: I wrote another article on this very topic some years ago. See A basic right denied.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Legally or Lawfully Married? An Anarchist Solution to Yet Another Statist Problem: Part I


BS-012715-LDS-Press-Conference-13-1 On January 27, 2015, in the wake of the Vatican Summit on marriage, the Church made national headlines, calling a news conference and issuing a statement defending LGBT rights. Elders Oaks, Holland, and Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve, along with Sister Marriott of the Young Women general presidency, attempted to stake out a middle ground between religious freedoms on the one hand and gay rights on the other. The conference was not so much about LGBT rights as it was about rights in general. Elder Holland best summed up the proceedings when he said, “Accommodating the rights of all people…requires wisdom and judgment, compassion and fairness.” He called everyone in the political sphere to “the highest level of statesmanship.” He didn’t elaborate on this statesmanship, but I would like to think, in the tradition of the Federalists, that statesmanship involves, above all else, a healthy skepticism of the State.

The biggest problem with the Church’s handling of the gay marriage issue thus far is not that it has clung too ideologically to the past and refused to “change with the times.” Quite the contrary. The Church has not clung strongly enough to the past, to its past, a past which included, among other things, fleeing blood-thirsty mobs in Missouri who all, incidentally, had the sanction of the State. As Latter-day Saints, we should not forget that the exodus to the Salt Lake Valley had a lot to do with escaping what was perceived at the time to be a tyrannical United States government.

How much has changed in 170 years? In his portion of the conference, Elder Oaks cited multiple examples in which he believed the State transgressed the Constitution, denying, at every turn it seemed, both the freedom of speech and of religion. These examples were instructive. What the examples should have indicated to the careful listener is that the State, as an institution of legitimized coercion, cannot be trusted to keep within the bounds it has set for itself (history has shown that self-imposed boundaries, because they are self imposed, can be changed more or less on a whim). And because the State cannot be trusted to keep within these bounds, the power it has over the populace should be radically curtailed or eliminated completely. The famous free-market anarchist Murray Rothbard said that the idea of a limited government that stays limited is truly utopian.

Elder Oaks, during his portion of the broadcast, exhibited this same kind of utopianism, you could say. He was right that the list of State atrocities against religion is “expanding”; however, the examples he provided, while indicative of bigotry and hatred, were not open-and-shut cases of rights violation. One such example was that of Christian student groups in the California university system. The student groups, according to Elder Oaks, were denied recognition by their respective universities because the groups required their leaders to share their Christian beliefs. The university system, he said, forced the groups to “compromise their religious conscience.” In situations like this, private-property anarchists are wise to point out that free speech issues are most of the time easily resolved when thought of as property issues. Though this case is complicated by the fact that the universities are state universities (paid for in part by taxes), it is clear that if one accepts a state’s right to taxation, then each university in question has property rights to its buildings, facilities, and, yes, money, and can therefore make demands on people using them. I do not, then, have a right, for example, to set up a table on a public sidewalk in order to sell my baseball cards to passersby. The State makes certain demands on people using their sidewalks.

***

In using the term “utopian,” to describe the Church’s ambivalence toward the State, I do not want to suggest that the Brethren are naïve or idealistic about the function of government. I mention Rothbard and his quotation, instead, to point to a kind of axiom that exists deep in the minds of all non-anarchists: that is, the government is good as long as, and in so far as, it doesn’t bother me. For the anarchist, though, there is no such thing as a government that doesn’t bother everyone all the time. The lifeblood of government is taxation, and what are taxes if not a gigantic bone in the throat?

During the news conference, all three speakers rightly defended the freedoms of religious people to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Elder Holland quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants. Sister Marriott framed the debate between gay rights and religious freedom. Elder Oaks expounded principles, listed and numbered them. While he spoke, one could sense a simultaneous aversion to, and endorsement of, the State. Early in his remarks, there was a yearning for a better time, hundreds of years ago, when the government still respected the First Amendment. By the end, Elder Oaks was invoking the State and its LGBT laws—which the Church was “on record as favoring”—as if to anticipate objections from the gay community. So what’s wrong with defending the government when it does good and defending yourself from the government when it does bad? Isn’t it normal to agree sometimes and to disagree other times?

I would say, in most cases, yes. However, there is a difference between agreeing with a principle and agreeing with praxis, the process by which a principle is actualized. I might, for instance, agree with people taking home more money at the end of the week but disagree (for various reasons) with a minimum wage law. The Church—and all religious institutions—should do its best to endorse principles and, outside its own welfare program and disaster relief, leave praxis to the politicians. Some might call this “utopian.” What happens when—not if—the State violates religious freedoms? Doesn’t this thrust the Church into the political sphere?

The answer is no. Latter-day Saints should know better than most Christians that the Church (with a capital “C”) is not equal to its membership. The Church is perfect, we like to say, but the members are not. Therefore, when religious freedoms are in jeopardy, it is these imperfect members, in their capacity as citizens, the church with a lowercase “c” in other words, that should respond politically. There is a long history of church leaders speaking not for the Church but for themselves. Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, denounced the theory of evolution, while the Church remained, officially, undecided on the matter. J. Reuben Clark wrote extensively about the evils of communism. I see no reason why things should be different now. This distinction between principle and praxis—that the business of revelation exists, and should exist, independently of politics—helps to explain why the Prophet Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States in 1844. When churches (with a capital “C”) get involved in politics, it not only grants legitimacy to the State and its coercion, but it strips churches of their revolutionary potential; it makes the church, its members, and its doctrine handmaidens of the State, subject to the wiles and caprices of special interests.

***