Rapids, Waterfalls and Rocks

All fiat currency systems function to transfer real wealth from one class or group to another class or group. That, in essence is why they exist.

The easiest place to start in understanding this is the counterfeiter. Everyone can see how a counterfeiter steals wealth from everyone and transfers that wealth to themselves. The counterfeiter starts with nothing and ends up with purchased goods and services of real value. The real value extracted from the system, is thus not available to others and so, while the total goods and services produced by society remains the same, the counterfeiter ends up with a larger share than they would have normally. Their share was stolen from everyone else.

Ancient kings debased their own currencies for the same effect. It transferred more real goods and services to the king than he otherwise would have been entitled to.

Today's counterfeiting operation is a cooperative venture between the banks, (especially central banks) and the government. The purpose of the operation remains the same, but because having a government as a partner is less risky, the central banks are able to get away with counterfeiting on a much larger scale. The government is willing to cooperate because they are the recipients of much of the benefits, just as the king was, so it is a symbiotic relationship.

Government benefits in three ways. First, it is able to spend the money first and benefit from its purchasing power before it gets diluted. Second, with inflation, those that borrow (as government does), effectively transfer wealth from those that lend, because the dollar that you pay the principal back with has lost purchasing power, so in real terms you're paying back less than you borrowed. Finally, the government charges taxes on the nominal (or apparent) gain in value due to the inflation (that they created) by confiscating some percentage of that nominal value through taxes. The higher inflation rises, the more wealth government transfers to itself from all three sources.

To maximize the transfer of wealth, government resorts to deceiving those it has made promises to. Since many welfare benefits are indexed to inflation, government has found it useful to under report the true rate of inflation. Leaving out some of the major commodities such as food and fuel and then substituting for cheaper goods (thus defeating the purpose of the measure), the government can subtract an amazing amount from the true inflation value without arousing citizen anger. Currently, with the actual inflation rate around 7% the government reports it as 2% or less and pockets the difference.

The victims of these wealth transfer schemes are primarily those that have saved money or been promised long term benefits. Retirees, Savers and investors will all have the value of their accounts whittled away due to inflation. They will still get the nominal benefits that they were promised, but those nominal dollars won't buy much when they finally get them. The reason this is becoming more apparent today is that the shortfall between what the government promised and what they can actually pay in real dollars is more apparent than ever. Something's got to give...and soon.

What will give is the value of the dollar. The dollar will soon be accelerating its decline in purchasing power. Inflation will be taking off. That is one of the few options that the government has left. Government could take any of the following options: it could default on its obligations, it could devalue the dollar or it can inflate the dollar (this is really the same as devaluing the dollar, but it happens over time, whereas a devaluation happens all at once). The other option that is sometimes expressed is to increase taxes or stop spending. Stopping spending is also the same as defaulting (either way somebody doesn't get paid) and you would have to increase taxes to more than 100% of everyone's income in order to meet the obligations we face today. Of these options, inflation is the most difficult to understand for most people, so the transfer of wealth that occurs is more subtle and less prone to produce an angry electorate, so that is the most likely path.

Even Republicans, who like to hold themselves out as somehow economically enlightened, have voted over and over again to solve the government's fiscal problems by inflating the currency. Rather than trying to explain to grandma that they promised too much, so they're going to cut her Social Security and Medicare in half, they simply will devalue the currency by half and when grandma complains, they'll shrug their shoulders and say they “don't know how it happened either”.

This is the only viable solution left. It is the legacy of all fiat currencies. Eventually they fail in a hyperinflationary collapse of value. The victims are the least productive of society, those that are attempting to live off their investments, pensions and government promises. It could have been avoided altogether by using a Constitutional currency and living within our means, but that was not the choice that was made. A Constitutional currency gives few opportunities to transfer wealth from those who have spent a lifetime creating and saving it, to those who would like it in their own pockets. Charles Ponzi's only fault was that he didn't think big enough; had he been a central banker, we would hear of him chiefly due to the donations that his family trust makes to charity, ala the Eccles Family Trust.

In our planning, we must assume that this is the path that we are on. The numbers we find ourselves facing today require inflation in the neighborhood of 15% or higher per year to discount future dollars sufficiently to pay for all of the government obligations. (for more information about inflation see http://www.danielamerman.com/) Of course, in getting from here to there, there will likely be some additional bailouts or government largesse that must be financed, so that the inflation rate will probably climb even higher than that. Hitting a specific inflation target without exceeding it will be difficult and the most likely result is that we'll probably overshoot and end up with hyperinflation rather than just high inflation.

Hyperinflation is characterized by a loss of confidence in government's ability to control inflation and we are in a situation now where the numbers are so bad that it is almost a requirement. Unfortunately, we risk the destruction not only of our senior citizens, investors and savers, but the Republic itself. The destruction of a currency allows for many unsavory elements to present themselves as the “solution” to the problem. In all of history, there are few examples of revolutionaries whose ideals are truly to better those around them rather than simply enrich themselves. It happened at the birth of this country, but it is unlikely that we'll be so lucky twice.

As an analogy, I think of our predicament as floating downstream towards a cataclysmic waterfall. When we embarked on the river, nearly 100 years ago, the hyperinflationary waterfall seemed so far away that those who warned of its dangers were treated with contempt. Even today, with the roar of the waterfall sounding louder every day, most people simply grow deaf. It is almost a certainty that our currency will go over the falls to its death. But, just to make it interesting, we have a few other things to worry about as we accelerate toward our demise. There are rocks in the river too. Big, sharp rocks. It's just possible that we may hit a big enough rock that we'll sink before we go over the edge.

These rocks are deflationary recessions. We just went through a massive one in 2008 which, by all accounts, nearly sank the ship of state. To get out of that mess, we bailed out the water leaking into the bottom of the boat by printing trillions of dollars, thus hastening the plunge over Inflation Falls, while exclaiming “Look ma! We didn't sink!!” But, as exciting as that sharp rock was, there are others out there just as big or bigger and some even more dangerous. It is by no means certain that we'll survive long enough to plunge over the falls, even if that is the major trend that is happening. Let's take a closer look at some of these rocks.

The mechanism for deflation is that of the collapse of credit. 95% of our money supply is credit. Actually, every dollar is an instrument of credit, so even the 95% may be an understatement. When credit collapses, businesses which depend on credit cannot operate. These businesses are typically the largest businesses rather than the smallest. When credit dries up, even momentarily, they are immediately at risk. (for more information on deflation see: http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-02-19T18%3A30%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=1 ).

When credit dries up, responsible businesses take defensive action. They reduce expenses and liabilities. One of the chief ways that they do this is by cutting their workforce to the bone. Those laid off workers then join the ranks of the unemployed.

Those unemployed, in turn, act in a similar fashion. Families facing uncertainty, cut expenses to the bone. They sacrifice by only buying necessities and foregoing any purchase that they can push to the future. Even if families aren't directly affected by layoffs, the climate of uncertainty means that “I might be next” and so in anticipation of possible hard times, other families act as though they've had a layoff too.

Because families reduce their consumption, businesses become uncertain about operations and this precipitates another round of layoffs. Business uncertainty makes extending credit even more risky and it dries up further. With reduced customer demand, businesses reluctantly lower prices in order to capture a greater share of a dwindling market. If businesses get pushed far enough they might begin to sell assets to try to increase their cash position. When many businesses try to sell assets simultaneously, the price those assets fetch is lowered. This is the “deflationary spiral”, where prices drop; it is an effect of deflation, not the cause.

Inflation takes time to accelerate to its devastating conclusion. In Weimar Germany of the 1920s, it took 3 or 4 years before hyperinflation rendered the currency worthless. I suspect that it will take even longer for the dollar to approach that same velocity of circulation and render itself worthless. Perhaps 5 years or more. Deflationary spirals, by contrast, can take effect in hours or minutes with today's communications. It is the speed with which deflationary events unfold that render them nearly impossible to halt. If the hole in the bottom of the boat is big enough, you won't be able to bail it out fast enough to keep it afloat, no matter how many zeros you print. If a group of customers came to the Fed and each said “I've been hit with massive losses, I need an immediate loan to the tune of 10 Trillion dollars”, even the Fed will blink.

Today there are any number of sharp rocks just waiting to sink our already leaky ship. Europe could suffer a deflationary meltdown at any time, triggered by a credit crisis exceeding it's ability to cope. The credit markets tend to act like predators, always picking off the weakest problem, then once that victim is down, turning to its next target. Since the US is not much stronger in real terms than Europe, once enough European dominoes fall, our turn will come soon enough.

Perhaps the biggest rock of all is almost completely submerged; the derivatives market. There are many kinds of derivatives and some are well known and adequately regulated, but the largest market by far is completely unregulated. The size of this market is not known for certain, but estimates place it at 600 – 1600 Trillion. For perspective, the low end of that number is about 10 times the GDP of the entire planet! The actual derivatives vary, but much of this unregulated market has grown as a form of insurance.

Suppose you have two insurance companies that insure many different businesses against losses. Each company realizes that their competitor may have to make good on a large number of claims and if it is unable to meet it's obligations it will destabilize the entire market and its own business may be jeopardized. To reduce this risk, the first company finds a third company and buys insurance against the risk that the second insurance company might fail. In order to offset a cataclysmic failure, this new policy must be bigger than the risk, so it is a gigantic policy, but the premium is low, because the risk that so many companies will fail at once, seems remote. Now, the second company company looks at the first and makes a similar calculation, buying a policy from the third company too. But then the officers of the first company note that the third company now presents a similar risk to the second company, so they go to yet another company and get a policy in case it, too, fails. Because the third company is holding very large policies written on the first two companies, this policy must be even bigger....

This process is repeated over and over, each policy written to “protect” against disaster gets larger and larger, with more and more of them written. They form an interconnected network of policies, each policy protecting against the risk of failure. The problem is, that even though the policies are designed to protect against a massive failure, in reality, since the risk the policies are insuring against is the same set of underlying businesses, the network of insurance policies is susceptible to a general business failure, such as when many businesses fail due to a sudden credit contraction.

If company one fails, that policy will become a claim and since the company responsible for paying the claim is also under stress, it may not have enough to pay it, so that company too, fails, causing other claims and failures, each one growing in size. In a matter of minutes the claims and counterclaims result in a massive liquidity crisis, every company needing cash, but unable to obtain it. Because of the interconnectedness of the giant companies that make up this market, it could become a world-wide conflagration in minutes. The sheer size of these commitments is staggering. There is not enough money on the planet to provide liquidity in a massive failure, well beyond the ability of any government, or all governments combined, to deal with it. This could be a massive rock capable of removing the entire bottom of our boat, making the recent sub-prime crisis look microscopic in comparison.

The cause of the problem is that while any one failure seems remote, the system was designed to handle a few independent failures, not a system-wide failure. The network of policies makes the system less stable overall, even if it provides safety in isolation.

This was, in fact, the cause of AIG's problems. They had policies against the failure of millions of mortgages, but once the mortgages began to fail, the weight of the systemic failure overwhelmed it. AIG owed huge claims to multiple banks around the world, all of which demanded payment on their claims at once. Only when Congress bailed AIG out, were they able to pay their bills to JP Morgan and several overseas banks. Had they not been bailed out, those banks, too, would have been insolvent and would have triggered an even larger avalanche of default.

Many experts are on record as saying that the entire derivatives system represents a monstrous risk rather than a safety net, but attempts to regulate and control the market were shot down during the Clinton administration (google “Brooksley Born” for more info). Since 2008, it is reported that, rather than shrinking, the derivatives market has grown ever larger, potentially more unstable.

If we hit a deflationary rock, we could experience something like we did in 2008, or it could be much, much worse. Congress is much less likely to bail out banks again should we hit a similar rock, so the likelihood that we will be swamped is actually greater. Bailing out the banks did not make us any safer, it merely postponed the day of reckoning and insured that whatever depths the crisis reaches, it will be even more devastating than it would have been. What does that mean? It is the difference between 20% of the banks failing simultaneously versus 40%, or 60 % or 80%. By continually pushing the problem into the future, we increase the likelihood that whatever happens, virtually every business and every family will be devastated. Essentially, the choice Congress will have, faced with a similar crisis, is whether to bail out the boat and shorten the time before we go over the cliff, or elect to let the ship sink where it is. Either way their choice will be viewed as an epic political and economic disaster.

A massive deflationary event could shut down businesses, starting with the largest and working at lightning speed down to the smallest business. Banks and insurance companies, being the largest, will be first. Once their credit dries up, they will be insolvent, in some cases, within minutes of the onset of difficulties. If banks are unable to operate, almost every business will find it impossible to operate. If failures are widespread enough, almost all business can be brought to a standstill virtually overnight.

This is the situation that we are facing as a country. It is probably too late to change course to avoid Inflation Falls and we could hit a deflationary rock at any time. There are preparations that individuals can take to preserve their own wealth, even prosper, in the face of economic catastrophe; still other preparations that should be taken to hedge against likely chaos. Arming yourself with education is a first step, but you must take responsibility for your own plan and implement it. The financial media are almost universally silent on the real risks and even more silent about how to effectively prepare for these scenarios, even though the risk of encountering one or more of them in the next 10 years is very high.

The Problem with Success

About the time I turned 50, I finally began to figure a few things out about business. The key to American business is debt. I'm not sure if it has always been that way, but certainly for the last 30 years it has. In almost every city of any size there are usually one or two business giants who figured that out when they were young and have built empires on their mastery of debt.

Whether it is through car dealerships or furniture sales, it seems the key is finding a product to sell that will allow someone else to become indebted. I don't mean this in a negative way and I'm not saying that these titans have done anything wrong. They, for the most part, didn't make the system, they just understood how to make the system work. Because of that knowledge, they were able to build up businesses which maximized success, by mastering debt.

Of course, large corporations have known this for some time. GM used to be a car company that built cars. Over the years they acquired a banking business to help customers finance their car sales. Today they are a bank that happens to build and sell cars. The banking business is their core business. Where I live there is a very successful furniture business. It has a number of showrooms, is well thought of and does a tremendous amount of business. The key to their success is the financing arrangements. They are really a bank that happens to sell furniture. They were so successful, that Warren Buffet bought them and let them continue to manage the business.

This transition has happened all over America. The financial services industry now dominates American business. It is where the action is. Whether on Wall Street or Main Street, The business of creating and servicing debt is what drives real profitability and those that have figured that out have prospered.

That is why it may be asking too much of our political leaders to go to Washington and change things. When we look for financial experience to send to Washington, we often look to success in business. We want someone who has been in the trenches. Someone who has built businesses and made payroll. Usually we look to a businessman who has made a name for himself. Increasingly, that person is someone who really understands finance, who makes their living encouraging others to get in debt.

But we want to send someone to Washington who will dismantle the debt machine that is strangling this country. We want to send someone who understands that it is debt that is choking the life out of our economy. Someone who is committed to a return to sound money. Constitutional money.

So why would you send a banker to do that job? The same man who makes his living via the status quo? You wouldn't. But today, the wealthy businessman running for office on a platform of change is often just a banker in disguise. Someone who sells cars or furniture or toasters as a means to get more customers enrolled in the debt machine. This is who we turn to with expectations that they will dismantle the system that their livelihood is based upon.

Perhaps that is why most of those running for office seem totally gung-ho about returning to the Constitution, but when asked about hard money, returning to a gold standard, they suddenly act like you just threw up on their shoes. “That requires some serious thought” they might say, but few, if any will give you the same enthusiastic commitment that they will to nearly any other Constitutional provision.

And who could blame them? There hasn't been a college textbook that thought that gold was a good idea for at least 50 years. Even then, the professors were preaching the “gospel” of Keynes and putting down the antiquated ideas of “that barbarous relic” (gold). My mother remembers that in college her science textbooks still said that matter could not be created or destroyed, but her professors informed her that, in fact, Einstein now said that idea was obsolete. Gold was treated the same way. It became a quaint notion almost immediately after the Fed was created. The few professors who thought otherwise were shoved aside. The best and brightest were attracted to the “new” science of economics based on a rejection of the gold standard. You weren't going to have a career based on researching something that had been around for 5,000 years. The excitement was all in the new ideas about money. Banking interests were willing to fund that research too and it wasn't long before the honors followed the research. In no time at all, gold based currency was a backwater. A career killing dead end.

So, today's businessman wasn't taught that a gold based currency has advantages that can, almost, be duplicated by careful monetary manipulation. He was taught that once upon a time gold was important, but that now, our economy is much too complex to be tied to anything so medieval as a metal. Besides, in his or her own personal business experience, the money to be made was in encouraging an ever widening pool of people to get into deeper debt. Responsibly, of course. But a modern businessman who doesn't play the debt game and play it well, is unlikely to have become successful. So it is unlikely that any candidate for office will have a mindset that says, “wow, what an economy we could have if we only went back to Constitutional money!” It has to be approached from another perspective entirely.

That approach is Liberty. The cornerstone of Liberty is private property. “But wait,” you say, “my candidate believes in private property.” In a limited fashion, perhaps. But almost all of our elected officials have grown up with the idea of “limited” private property. To really understand private property, you must first understand what it means to own private property. When private property is owned, it can't be taken away legally by force. “Well, I believe in that” you say. Do you believe then that private property can be subject to taxes? If I fail to pay my property taxes, what will be the result? My property will be taken from me by government force. The government is the true owner of that property. If you believe in that sort of property, then you do not understand ownership or Liberty. Liberty requires absolute property rights. I can do what I want with my property, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's property or their individual rights. That is Liberty.

Money, properly understood, is private property in the same manner. It cannot be taken from me or even taxed without a reduction of my personal Liberty. That is why the Federal Reserve Note can never be money. It is a debt instrument. You don't really own it. You may possess it, but even then you are required to pay a tax for the privilege. The Federal Reserve creates the money, and we must pay them interest on every dollar created. Those dollars are raised through taxes. You do not own the money you hold in your hands. It is not an asset to you, but to the Federal Reserve. Only gold and silver can be thought of in terms of absolute ownership. Only gold and silver can be considered money.

The Fed can change the value of the money in your hand any time they want. You have no say in it. They can create more of it, printing it out of thin air, or they can recall it from circulation. It is their right, it is their property. They own it. Naturally, it is to their advantage to create as much as possible, as the mere creation of the notes increases their revenue stream. Contrast that with gold or silver. No one can create it. We can dig it out of the Earth and refine it, but when you hold it, no one can devalue your property by making more of it. Only when the government exceeds its authority can it be taken from you. It is your property.

Only when we have candidates that understands Liberty and its connection to property will we have representatives who will undertake to change the system in a way that will return Liberty to the individual and in so doing, return the country to its roots. Only when we, as a society demand that those principles be honored will we be able to move the country in the direction of Liberty. Until then, it will be business as usual. That is all that our representatives know. It is all they are capable of. Even though they understand a great deal, if they fail to grasp the true nature of property and money as property, we will continue to be disappointed. It is unlikely that we will find men with these convictions if we look to the most successful men of business in our communities. We must look first for men of Liberty and the rest will take care of itself.

Rights and Responsibilities

The Bill of Rights, the first 10 (successful) amendments to the Constitution, have been hailed far and wide as a great triumph of freedom over government oppression, and so they are. But it is worth bearing in mind that when the Constitution was originally passed, it was not thought that they were necessary. Originally, the proposed bill was vetoed. This is instructive of the mindset of the founders and their confidence in the Constitution. They felt that they had been quite careful in granting only a few, very limited rights, to the Federal Government. All other rights, they felt strongly, were secure with the people or were so clearly the province of the States that there would be no future debate on the point.

Within a year of the Constitution's passage, their unease increased. Upon revisiting the matter, a majority now agreed that; while it was, perhaps, over-kill, a Bill of Rights would help to persuade the people that their individual rights would be preserved. How far things have changed! Today, even with the explicit listing of those rights, many of them are under serious threat.

The source of these rights is rooted in ancient traditions, found among all men, but was especially well developed in ancient England. People knew their rights and respected those same rights in their neighbor. So strong were these traditions, that even hundreds of years after the Norman Conquest, when European style kings were imposed on a more or less democratic people, the people rose up in rebellion and demanded their rights. They forced the King to recognize their rights in writing in the Magna Carta. It was this same spirit which impelled our Forefathers to resist the domination of the King and declare their own independence.

But, alongside these rights, which were critical, was an equally important concept; that of individual responsibilities. Every Englishmen knew his rights, but he also knew that these rights were but half the equation. If an individual were to deserve the respect of his fellowman, he had to do his part. Essentially each family unit was responsible for its own welfare. The purpose of the larger society was to help each other when necessary, but it was not a substitute for the responsibility of the individual to stand for himself. To be an adult meant, at a minimum, that you had reached the point that you could provide for yourself. This was as deeply and fundamentally understood as any notion of individual rights. The two ideas went hand in hand and were complimentary.

Every person has the responsibility to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself and his family. To educate his children in preparation to assume those same responsibilities when they are adults.

Today we have broken that bond. We have divorced individual rights from their corresponding responsibilities. Because of the Bill of Rights, everyone understands that they have some rights, (although it has become common to believe that those rights are granted by the State), but few have a clear notion of what might be expected of them in terms of their responsibilities. Consequently, few have any idea when government is taking over their individual responsibilities and even fewer voice their concern.

When government decides to provide food, clothing or shelter for individuals, it is, in effect, treating them as children; they are not independent, but dependent. It should come as no surprise then, that just as a parent might treat a child, a dependent member of society seldom enjoys the same unrestricted rights as others. Their protestations ring hollow in light of their de facto dependence. This helps set the stage for a government which condescends to treat its citizens as helpless children, undeserving of serious consideration. We see these attitudes surface in the way government relates to people, whether it is in a police force using unnecessary force without provocation, a surly civil servant processing a required form, or a city council passing ordinances denying individuals their right to live as they please.

Government is at its worst when it assumes a paternalistic role. When it charges itself with the right to make decisions which are the province of the individual, to protect people from their own mistakes. Our Forefathers envisioned a different nation, a nation of individuals enjoying their full rights which they earned as adults, by their willingness to shoulder the burden of their individual responsibilities.

The philosophers who gave shape to the notions which inspired the Bill of Rights were not silent about our responsibilities. The concept of Natural Rights was paired with that of Natural Responsibilities. We must, once again, couple these two natural pillars as the foundation of society. We should demand a Bill of Responsibilities as an amendment to the Constitution. This will serve to limit the scope of government, and restrict its role to that which it was intended.

I propose an amendment like the following:

The Natural Responsibilities of the people shall be respected and honored by government, which shall make no law to usurp or alienate them from the same, these same shall include but not be limited to:

• The Responsibility to provide for one's own support and the support of family

• The Responsibility to Provide for their own family's education

• The Responsibility to be honest in dealing with their fellow man

• The Responsibility for their own actions and it's consequences

By limiting government's ability to make laws which intrude upon the responsibilities of its citizens, it forces government to stay out of areas where individuals are best suited to operate. The massive bureaucratic institutions which are Education, Welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc would be eliminated as not belonging to the proper role of government.

As always, when individuals are allowed to act for themselves, there will be those who will fail to meet their obligations. Their family will suffer from neglect, from lack of education, even from hunger. But, as has been shown repeatedly, a vastly greater number will respond positively. This is the great principle upon which this country was founded, that individuals can act in their own best self interest and that in doing so, will build a great nation. When government responds to these individual failures and steps in to “fix” the problem, invariably it manages to make the problem worse, if not in depth then at least in scope and often in both. Thus, the war on poverty has created widespread poverty while Social Security simultaneously robs Americans of the means and desire to provide for their retirement and destroys our security as it steadily bankrupts the country.

The answer of course, is private charity. Private charity is based on the Christian principles upon which this country was founded. The government solution is based on theft by force, followed by redistribution of wealth (only some to the intended recipients). Charity need not be strictly religious in nature. Secular charitable organizations, which are common now would, of course, be welcome.

When those who fail to maintain their responsibilities become objects of private charity, the moral hazards which are dominant with public welfare disappear. The incentives are aligned with the goals of the greater society. “But,” it is argued by opponents, “the stigma of having to accept charity is demeaning.” I agree. The point is that these people are NOT meeting their obligations. They should feel stigmatized. Any other response will encourage contrary behavior. For those who are incapable of meeting their obligations due to mental disease, handicap or other problems; they are not capable of acting as true adults in society. Again, private charity is the best answer. By eliminating the governments role in charity, it will greatly reduce the scope of the problem. By reducing the costs and burden of government more money will be available for individuals to give to charity, thus improving the response for individuals in need. Those who would wring their hands because not every need is being met are free to give more personally and may, in turn, try to persuade their countrymen to do likewise, thus improving the charitable nature of the country as a whole.

Of course, there may be those who cannot discharge their responsibilities and who will simultaneously refuse charitable aid, what of them? People should not be insulated from the consequences of their own decisions. Where such people are suffering from mental defect, it should be addressed on that basis, but when based upon willful intent, it should be treated as any other self destructive behavior. It deserves our pity and our offered hand, but not our participation.

Reinforcing our Natural Responsibilities will make people more aware of the source of their Natural Rights. These are the twin pillars upon which successful society rests. We must restrict government meddling with the one so that we may fully be deserving of the other. The Constitution is the means by which government can most effectively be bound and we must move to limit its encroachment in this arena by promoting an amendment to remind all of that other half of the equation.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty simply means Self Determination. This was the principle the colonists fought the British for. Setting up their new country, they wanted to secure the right of self determination, not just for the government of the country, but for the people of the country as well.

Our sovereignty is under attack as never before. Once again, we find the Fed at the center of the problem.

From the Feds inception, it has represented an assault on our sovereignty. We can observe that in many of it's actions, the Fed promotes its own agenda at the expense of our national interest. Directly and indirectly, the Fed influences almost every aspect of our lives, from domestic affairs to foreign policy and much, much more. In this sense, it can be argued that the Fed's reach is far more powerful than the President or Congress. With the ability to direct so much of America's political direction and so much at stake, it's incredible that no citizenship requirement exists for it's owners.

By the 1800s, the Rothschild banking dynasty had established a powerful hold on the governments of the major European powers. By managing central banks in each country, they were able to influence the course of European history. Using the power to create and control money, the Rothschilds were able to lend liberally to any government they chose, regardless of the wishes of their host country. The Rothschilds benefited by simultaneously loaning funds to both sides of any potential conflict, garnering vast payments and gaining influence at each step. If war erupted, their network of banks circumvented borders, financing both antagonists. By financing both sides, the Rothschilds were insured of being on the winning side, indebting themselves to the victorious government, while miring it in crushing debt and in the process draining the treasuries of every country involved.

Our own country has been both the victim and beneficiary of this process. The American revolution was largely precipitated when the owners of the Bank of England and allied banks controlled by the Rothschilds, became aware that Americans had found a way to create their own currency, thus eliminating their profits . They hurriedly passed laws forbidding American currency and other measures to punish Americans for their insolence. The chaos and resentment resulting from these punitive laws helped trigger the Revolution. The surprising American victory temporarily curtailed the influence of foreign banks in America.

In more modern times, the largest American banks, in concert with the Fed, have used their money in much the same way, to fund Bolshevism in Russia, rearming the third Reich prior to World War II, and of course, the allied war effort during that war. In war, the very existence of all belligerents are at stake. What greater risk is there to sovereignty? While not overtly advertising for war, these powerful banks encourage it by providing both sides with money for weapons and war matériel, by pointing out economic injuries and supporting sympathetic politicians who stoke the fires of nationalism. How are they able to determine which politicians to back? Using the old Rothschild strategy, they finance both sides at the same time, and thus always back a winner, who is beholden to them for the office.

In creating money, the Fed supports each dollar with an equal amount of debt. This debt is represented by Treasury bonds, sold to the highest bidder. Ownership of these bonds gives the bondholder power and influence over our national policies. Again, there is no requirement that these bonds be sold to Americans, and increasingly, these debts are owned by foreigners. This means that before we undertake any action as a country, we must first consider any financial consequences that could result.

For example, if we, as a country, wished to support our ally Taiwan, we must first weigh that decision against what China, the largest owner of our bonds, wants us to do in that region. We have severely compromised our ability to make independent, sovereign decisions based on what is important to us. Instead, we grant increasing power to a country that is still, in most ways, our avowed enemy. And they are not alone. Even when we sell bonds to our 'friends', we must understand that each sale represents a slight loss of sovereignty. If we didn't have such an insatiable appetite for credit it would not be such a big problem, but we do, and it is.

Where did China get the money to buy our bonds? From our trade deficit. We buy far more from them than we sell to them. As a result, they end up holding “dollars”. They spend these dollars in purchasing Bonds and acquiring American companies. The scale of our balance of trade deficit is mind boggling. We are providing China enough capital to purchase the equivalent of several of our largest Fortune 500 companies each year.

This is similar to the situation where a farmer can only show a profit if he sells a few acres of land each year; it works, but eventually the farmer will have no farm left. Hopefully the new landlord will let the farmer work the land as a tenant farmer, but there is no guarantee. When foreign countries purchase American companies, they quickly replace top leadership and begin to run the company in ways that primarily benefit their own country. They may export technology and know-how, they may close plants and export jobs, and they will certainly export profits, thus beginning the cycle again. The role the Fed plays here is to artificially reduce interest rates and encourage credit to be issued. This easy money policy means that Americans feel more comfortable spending money on foreign goods than they might otherwise and this tends to increase foreign trade, making the problem worse.

How did the United States go from being the world's most powerful economy, a net exporter, to the world's largest debtor nation, suffering from chronic, massive trade deficits? To answer that question, we must look not just at the Fed as an institution, but at it's owners. We know that the largest American banks are among the owners of the Fed. Banks such as Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, etc.

The owners and managers of these banks are both the owner/directors of the Fed as well as the largest beneficiaries of its policies. These individuals are strongly aligned and share many common goals. They have consistently favored policies which lead to globalization over our national interests. They have loaned money beyond our borders to fund development in foreign countries. By encouraging business leaders, who are dependent upon these same banks for loans, to act likewise, they have created a compelling club-like atmosphere in which, it seems, no one is opposed to building up other national economies at the expense of our own. Congress too, takes its cue from these business and financial leaders. Since both are singing the same tune, few congressmen bother to question the long term effects of such policies, resulting in easy passage of bills spending billions of dollars to build foreign infrastructure (foreign aid), while our own infrastructure crumbles.

The Fed owners also sit on the boards of many of the largest corporations, where they are further able to influence the selection of company leadership and insure its compatibility with their own world view. By encouraging short-sighted profits over long-term viability, they have helped destroy our industrial strength. As American companies and banks have diverted investment dollars overseas, often at sweetheart rates, they have produced factories and created a workforce able to take advantage of foreign tax incentives and lower wages, creating a glut of cheap goods to be imported into the US. These are the goods responsible for our balance of trade deficits. In effect, they have followed the Rothschild strategy of using the profits from American business to finance both sides, creating foreign competitors to American businesses. The banks stand to profit regardless of who wins. The losers are the stockholders, the employees and ultimately, America as its economic engine has been dismantled and sent overseas.

American business, in partnership with the largest American banks, have been, if not the architects of their own destruction, at least willing participants. They have built up their direct competitors abroad, out of sight of taxpayers and shareholders who financed the scheme; First, by paying for loans through taxes (and the inflation that follows when the dollars created to finance these foreign projects find their way “home”). Second, by suffering a reduction in their standard of living while US businesses were closed and foreign competitors were built up. Third, by suffering from the damaging effects of massive and chronic trade imbalances. Fourth by the loss of whole industries; strategic assets, which are then unable to be mobilized in time of crisis.

Of course, we also benefit in the short term, by being able to buy cheap socks, shoes and tools, due to the fact that we exported jobs, closing factories here and rebuilding them overseas. Congress and our business and financial leaders, in contravention of our constitution, have determined that improving the lot of the average peasant overseas is more important to Americans than Americans themselves. These policies are often couched in politically correct and pleasant sounding code words such as globalization and foreign aid.

In any organization, effective control is limited by the number of direct reports. One individual cannot easily impose his will on an unlimited number of people. In the military, privates do not report directly to the general. There is a chain of command. Each officer has a limited number of people reporting directly to him. In this way, he can be certain that his instructions are understood, and accepted by his subordinates. Recognizing this principle, it is understandable that any organization would seek a structure that allows for more effective control.

The owners of the Federal Reserve and their allied central banks face a daunting challenge as they seek to manipulate the biggest game of all; sovereign states. Countries are complex, diverse, difficult to understand and even harder to control. To facilitate their complex plans, it would be helpful to have a more concentrated organization to deal with. During the first world war, discussions began among politicians and influential people concerning the formation of such a world-wide organization. Eventually, this organization was formed as the United Nations.

Every program administered or championed by the UN serves to concentrate power into this global governing body. Each rule made by any branch of the UN erodes the sovereignty of independent nations to the extent that those rules are recognized and acted upon by any nation. Rules made at the UN are considered to be supra-national, meaning both that they govern more than one country and they are superior to any individual country's laws. The laws of individual countries are considered subservient to international law, and where there is conflict, the laws of individual nations are pressured into conformance with these “international standards”. The fact that these “international standards” are based not on individual rights, but on a collectivist agenda, does not matter. It can be easily seen that the primary purpose of this body is to weaken the power and sovereignty of individual states by whatever means necessary, transferring that power into the infamously corrupt hands of the UN.

Even this body has proven too unwieldy, however. Having hundreds of countries endlessly debating certainly insures that any progress will be slow, however inexorable its direction. In order to speed things up, the concept of regional governments has taken shape. The most well known of course, is the European Union, comprising most of western Europe. There are others which are in the works as well, the most important are promoted by a group known as the Tri-Lateral Commission.

This group, conceived and funded directly by the Fed owners, is determined to divide the world into three regional governments: Asia, North America and Europe. It was founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973, and its members include prominent business, labor and government leaders from each of the three regions. American members include: Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and Lawrence Eagleburger among others. Since Jimmy Carter, every US administration has included an overwhelming majority of its members as cabinet level officials. Regardless of the party in power, the most important and prominent positions are drawn from this exclusive, anti-American club. The European Union is its greatest success, but they are now working diligently to combine Canada, Mexico and the US into a single administrative entity.

A key requirement is to diminish the importance of national borders. For many years, the border between the US and Canada has been more or less open. A common (mostly) language and similar heritage has meant very close economic ties between the two countries. To encourage greater integration between Mexico and its northern partners, immigration has been strongly, but unofficially, encouraged. Any effort to control the southern US border has been only half-heartedly supported by successive administrations. Drugs, and the underground economy are both important tools in this regard, and both are actually encouraged in subtle and overt ways against a backdrop of public hand-wringing.

Thus weakened, our borders will no longer seem relevant, and an international solution will be devised – surprise, a regional government! When enough Mexican nationals with dual allegiance reside in the US, resistance to laws which enforce the difference between the two countries will be at an end. While most Canadians have no desire to become part of the US, their economy is not strong enough to prevent the 600 lb gorilla to the south from forcing them to join together. Already considerable progress has been made in this regard, NAFTA has already broken down some important barriers. A proposed highway linking all 3 countries is reportedly underway. Despite official American protestations about the existence of any potential merger, it has been openly advocated by former Mexican president Vicente Fox, who apparently didn't get the memo to keep it secret.

It is important to note that discussions of these issues are taking place, not in government, but primarily in extra-governmental bodies, such as the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership), which are working as quietly as possible to dismantle our sovereignty and implement a regional government. They are commissioned and empowered by the representatives of each government, but their goals and plans are largely hidden. Many of the participants are hand-picked members of government, but they are funded privately by the Fed's owners, and thus, are subject to no oversight. Having members drawn from government means that implementation can be introduced directly as legislation, or with the Fed's backing, it can be privately funded if necessary to avoid controversy.

The IMF and World Bank are closely associated, not only with the Fed, but with the worldwide network of central banks. These central banks act in concert. They are, for the most part, only loosely controlled by the governments which are beholden to them for monetary policy. These institutions are dedicated to removing barriers to world trade and in so doing, are committed to the destruction of national sovereignty. The IMF and World Bank create loans to developing nations which serves to corrupt the local leadership and enslave the people of those nations. These international banks then dictate national policy in order to remain eligible for continued credit. In almost every case, these dictated policies are disastrous, causing even greater economic hardship and increasing dependence on the loans from the banks. While nodding with satisfaction at the dictated rules imposed on the recipient nations, the larger countries which provide the seed capital are hypocritically not required to live to the same standards and use this discrepancy as a competitive advantage. In addition, many of the loans come with strings attached, mandating that the projects which are the subjects of the loans are developed using companies from specific countries, which amounts to massive kickbacks.

With massive funding from these same Fed owners, US campuses are hard at work indoctrinating students in the 'benefits' of such a regional government. Arizona State University, for example, has outlined just such a curriculum for use by students at all levels. No doubt these ideas will be promoted endlessly by a media which is heavily dependent upon and tightly integrated with the largest corporations, banks and private foundations, all of which share a common vision and designs.

We are perilously close, as a nation, to losing the last ragged semblance of our national sovereignty. If we lose it completely, the American dream will have come to an end. If we, as Americans, value the ideals which transformed the world through liberty, we must act decisively. We must act now. We must reclaim the heritage and the promise that our founding fathers left as their legacy. A good start would be to eliminate the Fed, dissolve the connection between the giant banks and government and stop participating in the UN, IMF, World Bank and other UN sponsored programs.

The Courts

Perhaps the biggest risk to the Constitution comes from its own creation, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to insure that laws adhere to the Constitution. Through the years, this has become known as “interpreting the Constitution”. This idea, of “interpreting” the Constitution implies that the Constitution is to be molded around contemporary life and practice, rather than the other way around and is the principal threat to the Constitution itself.

As citizens, we must have an understanding of our relationship to the Constitution. That relationship should not be subject to change on the whim of a handful of judges, no matter how wise they feel that they are. To effectively change the Constitution by interpreting it differently at every juncture, is the same as amending it, without ratification, for every decision; it is a deeply flawed process. To me, this is a key reform that must be made if we are to have a nation that will truly endure.

At confirmation hearings debate ranges around what school of thought a prospective justice will use when interpreting the Constitution. Some are Originalists, who seek to use the original Constitutional meaning as their guide, others use their own background, political afffiliation, judgment and wisdom as primary sources. They treat the Constitution as an opinion, first among equals, that they must consider, but if the original document does not meet their approval, they have no qualms about rendering an opinion rooted in their own wisdom as though it had been forged in the fire of a Constitutional Convention and ratified by the States. Essentially then, they form an elite body whose individual vote, and personal philosophy is millions of times more powerful than any other citizen. No individual should be given this much authority; to effectively re-write the Constitution in their own image with no oversight.

Some sections of the Constitution today are considered to have more influence than other provisions. They are thought of as “controlling” or as being “more alive” than others. This is nothing more than a popularity contest, allowing some school of thought to take precedent and ignoring the compromises included in the document which give the document its richness and depth. By ignoring one provision in favor of another, The compromises which one group fought for and obtained at great cost are rendered impotent. It's as if they were never included. All provisions of the Constitution should be given equal weight. In a particular case which pits one provision against another, if the law cannot be reconciled with both provisions, it should be struck down rather than nullify one of the provisions.

There is now no requirement that any law actually state the authority by which it derives its power. While there is some understanding that all laws should be authorized by the Constitution, that is not, in fact, where many derive their authority. Only hinted at in the Constitution is the fact that our laws really rest on a foundation of English Common Law. The Constitution, surprisingly, does not even define what crime is. This should be rectified. I propose that the Constitution be the foundation upon which all laws are built, that English Common Law be recognized as giving guidance but not precedent.

Today, in America, many provisions of law used every day are based upon some precedent of law, which may or may not reflect any thinking embodied in the Constitution. When the justices encounter such a provision, they often invoke Stare Decisis, or reliance on precedent, as sufficient reason not to rule on whether it is actually Constitutional or not. Congress encourages this behavior by insisting that potential justices give considerable weight to Stare Decisis, rather than just the Constitution during confirmation hearings, because they have many pet laws in place that some politically aligned court has upheld as Constitutional in the past. They would rather not “rock the legal boat”, even if it means blatantly unconstitutional laws remain in effect. In principle, of course, this means that they (members of Congress) are not upholding their oath of office, by protecting the Constitution, but that oath is pretty much a hollow formality at this point, anyway.

The Supreme Court was envisaged as being above politics, and to encourage this, Justices are unelected and given lifetime tenure. However, in practice, the manner of filling vacancies is subject to very strongly partisan politics. As such, each president's goal has been to “pack” the court with as many justices as possible who share his political leanings or philosophies. Instead of a non-political court, it has encouraged ideologues to inhabit the courts for years and thus extend the policies and influence of a given president far beyond his limited term of office.

Neither has the Court been independent. It has shown a willingness to bend to political pressure rather than force unpopular decisions on an administration. Thus, the incarceration of Americans of Japanese ancestry in World War II was declared Constitutional.

Although the Constitution is clear that only Congress is to write the laws, the Supreme Court and the various inferior courts have been very successful at enacting legislation from the bench.

The purpose of the Constitution is to bind down government so as to limit it's authority and retain the sovereignty of the people. One failure then has been that the Supreme Court has not been sufficiently bound down by the Constitution.

So what can be done to correct these deficiencies? I propose that the Constitution be amended to contain language which binds down the Supreme Court, and all the courts under it, in the same manner as the Constitution seeks to bind the other branches of government. Because a Constitution which can be interpreted according to the latest fashion has no real meaning over time, I propose that the Constitution state that:

• all provisions in the Constitution must be given equal weight and consideration. That if a law cannot be consistent with all provisions that law must be struck down.

• all provisions must be interpreted according to the original intent of those who drafted it and the understanding of the States which ratified it at the time of ratification

• That in finding a law unconstitutional, the court merely strikes the entire law down and refers the matter to Congress or the Legislature to draft new legislation in its place. While the court may provide practical guidance in it's rendered opinion as to what modifications might improve its acceptability, it is up to Congress to make those compromises, if any. The Court may not assert itself to legislate.

• That a criminal act be defined as one in which a person knowingly acts to injure the person, property or rights of another, without just cause.

• That each law passed by Congress expressly state the provision(s) of the Constitution upon which it relies for it's authority.

As a final check on the power of the courts, I would look to the concept of Jury Nullification. Jury Nullification occurs when a jury finds a defendant not guilty, not because they believe that he is innocent, but in fact, when they believe him to be guilty, but the law itself to be unjust, or unjustly applied. Our Constitution is remarkable for the checks and balances that are given to the various branches to make sure that no single branch can usurp authority, but as a final check, this power should be given to the people, for whom the government is their servant and not their master.

This requires that the people themselves remain a moral and virtuous people, to prevent the courts becoming a mockery of justice, but this is the essence of the American experiment, that ordinary people can be trusted with great power and that government derives it's power from those people, not the other way around. While there are undoubted many instances where corrupt juries have released the guilty, there are just as many instances where a corrupt government has punished the innocent.

In reality, this power of Jury Nullification exists today, but it is actively suppressed by the courts and the system of justice. Defendants are prohibited from appealing to the Jury their belief that the law is unjust and jurors are warned that they may not use this doctrine as they deliberate. Today, only if an individual juror is aware of these rights can he act to apply the doctrine. I would firmly declare this right within the Constitution:

• That every juror shall have the right and responsibility to vote to acquit a defendant regardless of guilt or innocence if they feel the law is unjust, or unjustly applied, and shall be reminded of this right and duty before deliberating.

This provision goes beyond simply adding a check to the courts, but serves as a check and balance against all branches of government. It is applied at the point where citizens are most vulnerable and interact directly with all three branches of government.

The Founders

We hear it over and over, from the left to the right: “Our Founding Fathers...” They are held in a kind of reverence, or downright awe. But, when you think about it, they were simply men, as are we. Do they deserve the accolades that are constantly thrown? Were they simply products of their times, and thus, no different from us? Why should we take their words and ideas and hold them up as though they had all the answers? Their numbers were really very small, aren't we, in our collective wisdom and with the benefit of hundreds of years of additional history in many ways their superiors?

To me, the simple answer to the questions above is that: they were right! It is true that they were simply products of their times, but what were those times? They lived at a time when ideas were trumping traditions in Europe and in such a way that the benefits could be seen by all. For thousands of years kings and the Church had ruled Europe, but the protestant reformation proved that other ideas could inspire and bring progress with them. They grew up in a fertile soil that carried a much more democratic tradition than anywhere else in the world. A tradition that said that men - individuals, had rights, and that the King's prerogatives were limited to those areas which did not trample those rights.

They grew up at a time when the new, cutting edge philosophical topics were about freedom for the individual and whether individuals could actually be trusted to think and do the right thing. Contrast that with the debauched and narcissistic philosophies which dominate today and it becomes evident that theirs was a very special era. An era when the best ideals were lifted above the slimy realities of politics and power, when men still looked to the Bible for inspiration and guidance, not just in religion, but in their secular affairs as well. When the discussion around the coffee house was about the possibility of liberty and yes, justice for all!

They came of age in a time and place of extremes. Appointed Government officials, specialists in the most blatant corruption, surrounded by their toadies, abounded in the relative isolation of the colonies. To the North, in Canada, officials were more restrained in their corruption, and thus, never engendered the radical resentment to the Crown that obtained further South. There were vicious opportunists, scoundrels, indentured servants and slaves to be sure, but there were also pious, humble, good folk, who tried their best to express true Christianity in their dealings with others.

The Founders were singular men who were idealists, not chained by the reality of their day to day existence, but dreamers, wanting a better life, not just for themselves, but for all. Yet, they were men who understood the rough and tumble of life. They were not mere aristocrats, with an imagined view of the peasantry, but they were, for the most part, those very peasants, or perhaps a peasant once removed, unashamed of their heritage of thrift and hard work. They valued the ethics which the roughness of America forced the well-born to practice alongside the less fortunate. They saw these traits as building “good character”, more important than mere lineage. They were looked down upon by their own countrymen as inferiors, but looking inwardly, they recognized the hollowness of these criticisms and held their heads up.

Combining all these qualities with the advantages of place and time, they sought to capture their libertarian dreams in a living, breathing nation. They did not seek this out, they were not desirous of power or glory, and they did not feel that they were wholly prepared for the challenge. But, in fact, they were. Later they acknowledged that a hand more knowing than theirs had prepared, protected and preserved them for a great work, a legacy, to which we owe everything.

Today, we find very different forces at play. Few are concerned with bettering the condition of their neighbor, although many give it lip-service. As a nation, we have come to the point where the democratic instinct is to vote for “whoever will give me the most goods at the public expense”. We have little time or patience to study, in any more than a superficial manner, the thoughts, words or deeds of the Founders. They mean little to us now. We think we live in the same America that the Founders created, but in fact, the country that we inhabit today resembles King George's colonies much more than the nation “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created Equal”. When the Founders names are invoked today by both the right and the left, it is mere name-dropping, used to market cheap goods under a once-honorable brand.

The President of our Republic speaks openly of it as a Democracy, and seemingly does not appreciate the difference. The Oath of Office which requires only allegiance, preservation and protection of the Constitution, now serves only as a marker indicating the transfer of power; not the powers granted by that document to the office, but powers politely usurped from the people and wielded with contempt and disdain. The office has assumed the power and trappings worthy of the king we overthrew.

The Courts elevate their own personal ideology above Constitutional intent, rendering it practically of no account. They worship ill-considered precedent above the law which was debated, fought for and ratified by the States. They legislate from the bench without criticism from Congress. They promote ideas which are anathema to the spirit which created this nation, picking and choosing which portions of the Constitution to enforce as it suits their political leanings.

Congress is a country club for the nobility. Corrupt and corrupting, they are most concerned with personal power, prestige and preservation. They have turned bribery into a sophisticated art which separates the powerful from the people. There is no concern for the future; they have ransomed their children's future and then their grandchildren's future without a care. When confronted by those they profess to serve, they are mean-spirited, disdainful and contemptuous, proving they are the true descendants of King George's corrupt appointees and worthy of the same fate.

We can only hope that, somewhere in this tangle of weeds and refuse there are people being prepared once again, by God, to right this ship of state. That those of us who have grown up in the cradle of the remnant of this once-great nation will be willing to descend below decks to bail the stagnant waters of Socialist, Collectivist, and Keynesian thought from our midst and reinstate the ideals of Liberty that the Founding Fathers tried to impart. May those who are so prepared, be blessed with courage and character as noble as those of our Founders. We do not have much time left to prepare. Our destiny is being thrust upon us in critical times at a hurried pace. The foe is merciless and relentless. Are we up to the challenge?

The Failure of the Constitution: Toward a New Constitution

Our Constitution was crafted from the point of view that “that government which governs least governs best”. The ideas of the Founding Fathers were informed by the philosophy of Natural Rights and were based on a completely different model than that which the rest of the world has embraced, both then and now. That model is one of personal freedom and individual rights. In the interim, the ideas of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers have all but disappeared, leaving only a hollow shell and outward form in its place.

I am convinced that good government lies in the general direction that the Founding Fathers established. I am not convinced, as some are, that our Constitution is sufficient to get us there. My own, admittedly controversial, view is that the Constitution, as is, has largely proven to be a failure! The purpose of a written constitution is to preserve it's ideas as binding law upon future generations, providing a framework upon which new laws may be created and enforced and thus maintaining a stable political system. Since today we decry the fact that almost none of the Constitution's ideas are still actually in effect, the Constitution itself must have failed in it's primary purpose!

Of course, to a great extent, we cannot blame the document. Succeeding generations have willingly ignored what it actually says and purposely twisted it to their own purposes. But some of the fault must lie with the document itself. While the ideas and foundation of the document are both brilliant and inspired, I think that the lessons of history have shown that it is insufficient to withstand the abuses hurled at it. What I am proposing is that we examine the Constitution with an eye to creating an improved document that will better resist the ravages of politicians and of democracy itself. We must try to forge better, stronger chains to bind down government more effectively, so that the people under it can truly be free again.

But even contemplating such a Herculean task in the political world throws a spotlight once again on what a remarkable document the Constitution actually is. No one seriously believes today that a Constitutional Convention, if called today, would result in a better document than what we have now. In fact, most fear that the opponents of freedom would, in fact, co-opt such a gathering and succeed in producing a document much more suited to the enslavement of the people it pretended to serve than in freeing them. Today powerful and wealthy elites completely dominate the halls of power, delivering self-serving platitudes, effectively robbing the people of their dignity and freedom and the nation of the ideals which made it unique. That such a document of ideals could have been written at any time is such an amazing feat, that no rational person can deny the guiding hand of God in it's inception.

So, what is the purpose of even talking about possible improvements that could be made to the Constitution? If we fear the likely outcome of a Constitutional Convention more than we fear the status quo, does any talk of potential amendments only add to the likelihood of future disaster, a hastening of our demise?

In the Declaration of Independence which defined the grand purpose of our nation, Jefferson declared:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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.”

I believe that it is quite likely that America may be approaching another crossroads, where the sentiments expressed by Jefferson may be tested again. If so, I feel that it is likely to be a chaotic, difficult, bloody affair. I do not claim to know the specifics of who might be involved, but I think that through the crucible of struggle there may be an opportunity for rebirth and it is also possible that in such a time, new ideas which are based upon the concepts of the Founding Fathers, but also take advantage of lessons learned in the interim could be used as the basis of a new document, which could both return us to the original ideals of the Founders and enable those ideals to persist more securely into the future.

Of course, it is quite possible that the events I imagine will never transpire. It may be that no opportunity will present itself to breathe, wholesale, new life into the Constitution. But I do not believe that contemplating these ideas will be fruitless even then. I feel that it will bring to every person who seriously undertakes the challenge a better understanding and renewed appreciation of the Constitution that we have now, and that itself is a worthy objective.

When classical music was in its ascendancy, aspiring composers would train themselves by composing variations on themes written (usually) by other great composers. Sometimes these variations would surpass the original. This is what I am proposing: that we experiment with variations on the original themes that our Founding Fathers laid down for us. While endeavoring to remain true to the original spirit of the document, we should not slavishly be bound by it, but should be open to exploring other ideas, which may also have great merit.

If an opportunity then arises in the future, where we may profitably use some of these ideas, we will have been repaid most handsomely for our efforts, but if not, we will still be richer for the effort. Let us then, pretend that like the founders, we must create a document that will capture the essence of that America which was declared a nation in 1776. We will never be able to step out of the shadows of those giants which are our Founding Fathers, but we may someday be able to stand up proudly as their sons and rightful heirs!

In a future post I will throw out some particular examples of areas which I think would be valuable for consideration. And then I think the best thing to do might be to post ideas individually for discussion as to their merits.