The
State of the Union under a failed Constitution
February
8, 1995
The time has come
when it is necessary for someone to take upon himself the task of bringing to
the attention of his fellow citizens that those who are sworn to uphold the
Constitution are not doing so. That as a result the Nation is embarked on a
very dangerous course, the ill effects in terms of financial cost,1 emotional
cost and loss of constitutional rights, can be seen everywhere. This writer
proposes to make his case to his fellow Citizens by writing a series of
articles under the banner of the Federalist, numbered in sequence after those
written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. They signed:
"PUBLIUS". This writer will sign: "PUBLIUS II."
THE
PROBLEM: The nation does not now and has not for some years experienced
constitutional or representative government. That is because notwithstanding
that the US Constitution was specifically written to prevent any single
"same hands" group from accumulating all powers of government, one
particular group has succeeded in doing precisely that. James
Madison, author of the US Constitution, wrote: 2 "No political truth is
certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more
enlightened patrons of liberty than that ... the accumulation of all powers
legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few
or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny." For then the laws
are made not to serve justice, but rather to serve the personal profit of those
who make them. To avoid the "same hands" accumulation of
power, the Constitution incorporated a system of "separation of
powers" and "checks and balances". This system created three
separate branches of government. The Legislative (Congress), which makes the
laws, the Judiciary (the Courts), which interprets the laws and the Executive
(the Presidency), which enforces the laws. By separating the powers of
government in this manner it was intended that each branch would serve as a
"check" and "balance" to the powers of the other two. This
was done in order to make certain that the government would never possess
sufficient power to oppress the people. However for many years now, all
three branches of government and the powers they command to control all
government, 3
legislative,
4 executive5 and judiciary have effectively
"accumulated in the same hands". Those "same hands" belong
to the legal profession. As a result the "same hands" lawyer/judges
now make the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws, thus defeating the
spirit, intent and purpose of the Constitution. Such control by this or any
other group is unconstitutional because it violates both the separation
of powers/checks and balances principles of the Constitution and the principle
of representative government. These constitutional violations strike at the
very heart and soul of the US Constitution. These violations emasculate the
Bill of Rights create an elitist class similar to the European aristocracy of
the eighteenth century, unaccountable to anyone but themselves. These
violations enable both the Government and the elitist class, under color of
law, to oppress the people, in ways too numerous to Decalogue in a single
article. The control acquired has also seriously undermined the integrity of
the legal profession. Fortunately the profession still contains a substantial
number of very honest individuals upon whom the nation can rely for the
furthering of this just cause. The solution: The solution lies in
returning constitutional government to the United States by ascertaining that
members of the legal profession not be permitted to exercise control over
either the Executive or the Legislative branches of government. The solution
can be achieved through the ballot box by voting lawyers out of office, or
through the courts, by constitutionally challenging their election to the non-judiciary
branches of government. Lawyers would continue to function in all other areas
as before. In other words constitutional government requires the people to
control the legal profession, not the legal profession to control the people. The
reader is asked to remember that space limitations control the writer's ability
to fully document arguments made. Let us begin with an examination of our
rights as citizens under our Declaration of Independence: The Declaration of
Independence holds certain 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 abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying it's
foundations on such principles, and organizing it's powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect, their safety and happiness." 6 It is
clear at the present time that the nation's government has become destructive
of the ends intended in the Declaration of Independence. The people are more
distrustful of their elected officials than ever before, and deeply disturbed
with government's inability to provide them with many of their rights under the
Constitution. Among which are: Honest government, moral leadership, security,
freedom from oppression, proper education, affordable access to the nation's
system of justice, and affordable health care. It is therefore the right
of the people to alter the government.7 (In this case only to
enforce the Constitution as written). What is unclear to the people is what
to do or how to do it. The fundamental source of the nation's problems is not
easily apparent. That source does not principally lie in the flawed nature of
particular individuals who are elected to government office, for all human
beings lack perfection. Rather the "flaw" lies with the way in
which the "system" itself is being made to function by those
responsible for its functioning. The "systemic flaw" is that the
nation, although generally unaware of it, has elected to effective control of
the Legislative and Executive branches of government, a plurality or majority
of the "same hands" legal profession, as have already acquired
absolute control of the Judiciary Branch of government. It is the members of
the legal profession who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.8 It is
to them that the nation looks for protection from the oppression of government.
It is they who bear the full responsibility of bringing to the nation's
attention that the Constitution prohibits single group "same hands"
control and that such control has occurred. They have done neither. Instead
they have both acquired unconstitutional control for themselves and concealed
the fact from the nation. Yet it is probable that many in the profession are
not even aware of what has occurred. For many years the legal
profession has proceeded, unchallenged and unchecked, knowingly or not, with a
history of constitutional violations and abuses against the people of the
United States. These activities escalated in the last half century with the
establishing of the so-called "Integrated Bars" in the individual
States 9 to
which all practicing lawyers were required by law to belong, thus making every
lawyer and judge "a part" of the judiciary. "Integrated
Bars" were unconstitutionally10 created by the Judiciary
Branches of the States as an "arm" of the State Supreme Courts. After
which State Constitutions were amended to transfer the admission and
disciplining of lawyers and judges to the Judiciary Branch of Government of the
individual States.11 Thus the legal profession became accountable to none but
it's own peer group, unlike any other profession in the land. These and similar
activities, whether by design or otherwise, produced a consolidation of all
government power in the hands of the legal profession resulting in the
following:
1. The profession has acquired virtually
unlimited political power in the land, and with that the ability to make laws
to serve its personal profit rather than justice.
2. The
profession has maximized its ability to acquire the highest possible share of
the nation's wealth for itself. 3.The profession has collectively though not
individually, become the most corrupt, least respected and according to its own
surveys, least trusted profession in the land.12 4.The profession has (perhaps
unwittingly), imposed on the nation enormous secondary costs essential for
protection from the predatory nature of the profession.13 5.Members
of the profession, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the concepts of
representative government and separation of powers, have (perhaps unwittingly
for many) violated their oath by creating and operating a government,
substantially without either. The pursuit of power and control of government by
the legal profession is the natural expression of any group's attempt to
maximize its own members, power and financial rewards. That is human nature.
That is why the Constitution is opposed to any "single interest
group" acquiring such control, whether tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor,
lawyer, doctor or native, American chief. What has occurred though not a
"conspiracy", does have precisely the same effects. In law that is
known as a "constructive conspiracy."These matters raise a
number of critical questions: I. How and when did the profession acquire
control? II. What are the abuses that allowed such control and the abuses that
now afflict the nation? III. Why is the nation still generally unaware of the
existence of the problem or how serious it is? IV. Who specifically is
responsible? V. What can and should be done about it? Subsequent
articles will address these questions. Most important at this point is for the
nation to become aware that as a direct result of the legal profession's
unconstitutional control of all government an abundance of laws have been
enacted, interpreted and enforced, for the personal profit of the profession,
not justice. This imposes on the people of this nation a very high financial
and emotional cost, as well as substantially depriving the people of their
ability to exercise their full constitutional rights in any of the following
areas: 1. Access constitutional remedies under the Bill of Rights, or 2.
Gain reasonable access to the nation's courts, or 3. Exercise their first
amendment right of free speech, or 4. Be free from a corrupt judiciary, or 5.
Be free from the oppression of merit less lawsuits, or 6. Receive a fair trial,
or 7. Live reasonably free from crime, or 8. Enjoy the right of
self-determination through State constitutional amendments, or 9. Access
affordable health care, or 10. Access safe and meaningful universal
education or 11.Access divorce without war, or 12. Receive fair treatment in
bankruptcies, or 13. Receive fair treatment in the adoption of children, or 14.
Be free from the criminalization of activities not criminal anywhere else in
the civilized world, or 15. Be free from oppressive
and unreasonable regulation imposed by bureaucrats immune from accountability
and the democratic process 16. Have the President pick his judges and Supreme
Court Justices free of unwarranted influence, as well as many other areas too
numerous to mention. Excluding lawyers, and any other
"same hands" group that may emerge, from the Executive and
Legislative branches will correct the problem. A similar problem existed in
Britain in 1832.14 There the British Lords (called Peers), controlled both
the House of Lords and the House of Commons until they were excluded by Law
and/or practice. The solutions called for here will do the same for this nation
as excluding Peers from the Commons did for the British. This writer is merely
calling for action tried and true and the application of sound and well established
historical legal precedent. The first step and purpose of these articles in
achieving either solution, requires informing and educating the people about
the nature and extent of the problem, and how to resolve it.
PUBLIUS II (Ronald
Bibace)
About the author, This writer became aware of
the problem in 1985. The views presented here were first developed and
articulated by this writer in 1989. This writer has become a constitutional
scholar in pursuit of the justice of this cause. Sufficiently so that Professor
Albert Blaustein,15 a world renowned constitutional lawyer, international
consultant, and prolific author of numerous books on the law, having never
before heard the proposals articulated here, was persuaded that this writer's
views are sound and should prevail in a court of Law, and has said so in
writing. This writer is President and co-founder of a national organization
dedicated to the restoring of constitutional and representative government.
This writer like James Madison loves the law but is not a lawyer. This writer,
like Alexander Hamilton, is an immigrant and a naturalized American citizen.
1 Estimates of financial costs to the nation vary between $300
billion and $1 trillion per year.
Federalist # 47, Jan
30, 1788
The US Senate has had
an absolute majority of lawyers for years. The House of Representatives has had
an overwhelming plurality and a near majority for just as long. Both the
President and Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet are lawyers. The
Judiciary consists 100% of lawyers.
Declaration of
Independence, 1776
All lawyers and
judges are required to swear an oath upholding the Constitution.
In Florida the State
integrated Bar was created in 1949.
The Supreme Courts of
the individual States created these entities in which the Court alone makes the
law, interprets the law and enforces the law, affecting all citizens in the
State in violation of the separation of powers principle of the Constitution. Many
legal scholars have said so. No case has yet been brought to test the issue in
federal court.
In Florida it was
done by constitutional amendment to Article V of the Florida Constitution.
American Bar
Association survey 1994. Occupational crime by Dr. Gary Green. (Nelson Hall 1990).
Professor Steve
Magee, University of Texas at Austin. Economist, White House, Nixon era.
The Great Reform Act
of 1832 by E.J. Evans 1983 (Methuen & Co. N.Y., N.Y.).
Albert Blaustein
(1922-1994) Professor Emeritus, Rutger's University, Constitutional Consultant
and counsel to Russia, Bolivia, Canada, Poland, Nepal, Uganda, Niger, Peru,
Brazil, and many more. Author of more than 25 books, among which
"Constitutions of the World" 22 volumes, updated annually.
No comments:
Post a Comment