The proposed Constitution of the United Tribes of The Sudan ----------------------------- Feedback Box:
Sudan cannot become a free nation by merely stopping the invading Khartoum slave traders, with U.S. and U.N. assistance. Sudan cannot stand among nations until she replaces that corrupt anti-government with a free government which can unite her tribes resolving intertribal disputes by law rather than by war.
But what details will fill the future Constitution of Free Sudan?
These proposed details are actually a translation of the United States Constitution into modern language, with brief, clear explanations of technical legal terms, and application of its principles to the needs of Sudan. This article explains the differences between the U.S. Constitution as it was originally, and what it has become, and why the original U.S. Constitution would be a better model for Sudan.
This draft was posted at www.panews.org on July 22, 2001. It was initiated at the request of, and influenced by, input from Sudanese Refugees. Coordination of further Sudanese input, in order to develop a Constitution which may eventually meet the approval of all the Sudanese people, is a project of The Partnership Machine, Incorporated, managed by Dave Leach, until such time as Sudanese may take it upon themselves.
Introduction (Sudan's Need, What Refugees can Do, America's Hope)
The Declaration of Independence (Reasons Khartoum's rule cannot rationally be callled "government")
The Constitution of the United Tribes of The Sudan
"Preamble", or introduction, stating the purposes, or limits to jurisdiction
Article 1: The House of Representatives and Senate
Article 2: The President
Article 3: The Courts
Article 4: Relationship of Tribes to each other and to federal government; Article 5: Process for amending Constitution; Article 6: Authority of this Constitution, and legitimacy of debts; Article 7: Process for ratifying this Constitution
Introduction: Sudan needs a Constitution. And Americans need to understand, so they can regain, their Constitution as it was originally given them. Sudan's need can be America's hope.
Sudan today consists of disunited Tribes mostly governed by elected Tribal Councils, but with no civilian control over their Generals who half protect them from the Moslems of Khartoum, and half milk them dry of all their resources in order to supply their armies.
Not that this situation is the choice of the Generals. The people of Sudan are generally grateful that armies are protecting them from the slave traders from Khartoum. Of course they don't like it when those same armies take supplies from them by force. But when citizens have not formed a civilian government capable of supplying their soldiers in the most efficient, fair manner possible for all citizens, then soldiers are forced to take their supplies in a less efficient, often cruel manner. Nevertheless, the popularity of these whom the world calls "warlords" (because their primary contribution is war, and because they are accountable to no law or no man, yet have life and death authority over others, meeting the definition of "lords") is shown by the likelihood that when civilian government is finally established, they will probably be elected to high positions in the new government, just as George Washington, general of the Revolutionary Army, was elected President. (Washington's army was supplied by a civilian government. But even at Valley Forge, when supplies were interrupted by the traitor Benedict Arnold, he never took supplies by force.)
It should not be assumed that these generals would oppose establishment of a Civilian Government to which even they must submit and be held accountable, just because they have not promoted such a concept. Many U.S. politicians would love to return America to the Constitution as it once was, but as long as Americans won't even read it, much less become involved in supporting it, the best of our politicians are forced to act like Lords, making life-and-death decisions without public input, participation, or conscious agreement. Dr. John Garang graduated from Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, and Dr. Riek Machar graduated from Oxford in England. They both call themselves "Doctor" to this day, indicating they are still proud of the education they received under representative governments. There is every reason to presume they are both working towards the day when a civilian representative government can rule the land they have freed.
Sudan needs a vision of civilian government. Sudanese refugees yearn for peace. They yearn to leave the United States and other countries of refuge, to return to their homeland after they may safely do so. They want to see their families again; if only to visit! They cannot while there is war! But what can replace war, if there is no vision, no structure for peace? Will it solve Sudan's problems to stop the Moslem aggressors, only to leave Sudanese at the undistracted mercy of its own military dictators?
The situation creates a practical problem for Sudanese trying to appeal to sympathetic U.S. State Department officials. Yes, the U.S. wants to help; the will to help is there. But which of the competing warlords should the U.S. help? It would be much simpler if the aggressors from the North were the only "bad guys", the only ones fighting their own people. But the accusations between the competing warlords are too sophisticated for sympathetic Americans to know who to help without only giving bad guys ammunition to destroy their own people. Many Christian missionaries are able to serve as reliable witnesses, but they will not because of fear of retaliation from the General controlling the area they serve. I assume that is the reason the only U.S. help contemplated, so far, is food. (Even that is a bold step, given the Moslem determination to militarily oppose even shipments of food!)
But that can be corrected by the 10,000+ refugees in America and elsewhere, if they have suffered enough to be ready to come together in consensus on a civilian government. Refugees are in continual communication with their families back home, and they regularly send back home, altogether, millions of dollars a year. Consensus among them, if coordinated politically and economically, has the potential for preparing the hearts of their families for a Constitutional civilian government.
What Sudanese Refugees can do:
The first step is to discuss this draft. Any Sudanese who agree with the current draft should sign their name, Tribe, address, phone number, and email, that I may add their names at the end of this document. In that way, Sudanese who support it can write each other, and form organizations as they please, and plan joint projects to help their families back home, and coordinate their efforts to influence the establishment of civilian government back home. Any who so choose may work through The Partnership Machine, Inc. (The reason for revealing your tribe is so we may all monitor how broad support is for this Constitution. If people support it from a cross section of tribes, we will know we are making good progress. If only one or two tribes support it, we will know we will need to struggle harder against the barriers of prejudice before we can have peace.)
Those who disagree with any part of this draft should explain their objection, and send it with their name, Tribe, address, phone number, and email. Their concern will be posted with this draft, so that anyone reading a particular provision of this Constitution will be able to read all the arguments for and against it that we know about. Not only will this discussion help the people of Sudan to think through the pros and cons of each provision, but future generations will be able to look back at the discussion to clarify what its authors meant. We have this kind of record regarding the U.S. Constitution: we have a record of the debate during the Constitutional Convention, when it was written. We also have letters and articles in newspapers arguing about what each provision does. From this record we are able to reconstruct the original meaning of English phrases which, after 200 years, are unclear.
The second step is for Sudanese refugees to tell their families back in Sudan, whom they communicate with regularly, about this Constitution, and ask them to support it. Ask them to explain it to their tribal councils. When enough tribal councils support it, they will be able to meet together in a "Constitutional Convention" to discuss the Draft and eventually to "ratify" the Constitution they finally draft, thus making it the Law of the Land. That Constitution will enable them to raise their own militias. Militias supported by all the people will necessarily be more powerful than armies without popular support.
I (Dave Leach, Partnership Machine, Inc. manager) have read the Constitution a few times before, but the task of translating it makes me focus on small details which previously I had just glossed over, like a Sudanese employee glossing over instructions given by his boss and understanding about 90% of it, and figuring that's close enough.
I found incredible treasures buried in that remaining 10%!
I have read many articles before about protections of our liberties in the original Constitution, which the Courts and Congress have ignored, but I only took the articles half seriously because the path to regaining our lost rights seemed so remote, so distant.
But now there is a fresh opportunity, a fresh reason to understand the Constitution with great precision. A Christian People may potentially adopt it. Therefore there is every reason to lay aside all apathy and understand, and teach, not only what the words mean, but why each is important. What a tragedy, to watch Sudan move towards a peaceful, civilian government, and not take the trouble to warn them of the ways we have experienced that their constitution could fail them, if it lacks certain vital protections, or if certain phrases are allowed to be perverted!
Not only does Sudan's need prove a wonderful new reason for Constitutional study for Americans currently about half inclined to its study, but should Sudan successfully establish a pure, successful Constitution, its living demonstration of righteous government could be a beacon for the whole world. Including America, who once bore the same light!
Directions: Text in black is from the U.S. Constitution. Text in maroon is a translation of the previous paragraph from the Constitution. Explanatory paragraphs are in blue. Minor modifications to the black Constitution text, to make that paragraph adaptable to Sudan, is also in blue. Italics show original Constitution language which is not proposed for Sudan.
The Foundation of Freedom (from the Declaration of Independence)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America (Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the 500+ Tribes of The Sudan
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown 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 Dictatorship in Khartoum is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these Tribes. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He [King George] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Khartoum refuses to honor its own laws, treaties, and contracts necessary for peace.
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.
Khartoum has burned the crops of the people of Sudan, and threatened to oppose with military force the shipments of food from charitable foreign nations, except to regions where Khartoum controls its distribution or is able to come shortly after distribution and steal the remainder; and Khartoum distributes only to Sudanese who will renounce their Christian faith and embrace Islam.
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.
Khartoum only once, a generation ago, permitted, but soon dissolved, a Parliament including elected representatives from the South.
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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Khartoum has consistently betrayed the efforts of leaders of the people to establish order among themselves, and peace with Khartoum, encouraging anarchy, excusing enslavement of our people, and fomenting violent divisions within us.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
Khartoum has blocked supply routes to the South, while sending bombers to destroy all we can build. Khartoum has seized our oil fields and completed a pipeline to the sea so that our oil, from the South, will supply only Khartoum's bombers and slave traders, while the South has neither oil nor its income. Khartoum's violence and policies keep out immigrants, tourists, and missionaries who value their lives.
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 harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Khartoum has sent swarms of soldiers to overwhelm our people, but without paying them, pressuring them to supply themselves by consuming our crops and cattle, and enslaving our women and children, all the time telling the world they do not authorize slavery!
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
Khartoum has no concept of elected representatives of the people. It has no understanding of civilian government. It is a military dictatorship that rules by force. It's "president" has no love, respect, or support of the people, except that they are more willing to tolerate him than to challenge his troops.
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:
Khartoum has added, to his unpaid, slave-trading fanatic Moslem mercenaries, over one million Chinese workers/troops to protect our own oil fields from us.
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by 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:
Khartoum has left Sudan, and especially the South, so destitute of humanitarian and political basics that we have all but forgotten such luxuries as fair trials, or taxes set by our elected representatives, or freedom to choose our own form of government.
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in 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.
Khartoum has forfeited any claim to logically calling itself our "government", by acting towards us in a manner that fails to meet any dictionary definition of "government". Khartoum wages ruthless war against us, which is not the action of a "government" but of an invading foreign army. Khartoum provides no services to the South, either economic, humanitarian, or even legislative or judicial, which is part of every known definition of the word "Government". It does not control any area of the South except for a few cities which it has turned into fortresses supplied by air since it cannot even reach them by ground, but its control stops at the point its bullets cannot reach. This quality of "control" does not fit the profile of the world's concept of a "government", but rather of an occupying foreign military power.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Khartoum has plundered our oil, destroyed our supplies and transportation, bombed our chuches and hospitals and towns, and enslaved those or our people it has not killed. This does not fit any known definition of the word "government". We regard it as irrational for any news reporter, missionary, or foreign diplomat to refer to the military organization based in Khartoum as the "government" of any part of Sudan, and certainly not of the South.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totaly unworth the head of a civilized nation.
Khartoum is continuing to import massive armies of Chinese "workers" in far greater numbers than can be justified to defend our oil fields from us, or even to fully conquer the South; but in numbers sufficient to mount a formidable invasion of all the countries of Central Africa.
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.
Khartoum has kidnapped our children to make them slaves, to use our daughters for their lusts, and our sons as cannon fodder against us, to either slay us or be slain.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Khartoum has turned neighboring countries against us, insofar as they were disposed to ally with Khartoum; and intimidated the rest into relations with us more strained than they would have been without Khartoum's threats of retaliation.
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.
In every stage of these these oppressions we have petitioned Khartoum for relief in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A "President", 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 attention to our British 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. 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.
Nor have we neglected to reach out to our Sudanese brothers under Khartoum's heavy hand. We have lost heroes, slain by Khartoum only for working, through peaceful, political means even within Khartoum's own laws, to negotiate peaceful coexistence. We have appealed to them, by the ties of our common blood, to use whatever influence they could to limit Khartoum's aggression. While we cannot blame them for their failure, we are grieved that their failure will cause many of them to be pressed into military service against us, and that necessity will force us to respond to them, in war, as enemies, while we long to embrace them, as brothers, in peace.
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 the 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.
We, therefore, the scattered refugees of The Sudan, from North and South, communicating with each other and our families still in Sudan to the extent God allows, appeal to the Grace of the Supreme Judge of the world to nurture and water whatever merit He sees in our intentions, representing our families in Sudan who cannot physically sign this proclamation themselves, solemnly declare that our Tribes are, and by any righteous judgment ought to be, free and independent peoples; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the dictatorship in Khartoum, and that all political connection between them and the military dictatorship in Khartoum, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent Tribes, they have full legal power to wage war, negotiate peace, sign treaties, conduct foreign trade, and do all the other things which independent peoples have the right to do.
Firmly trusting the protection of Almighty God, we mutually pledge to each other to dedicate, to the Freedom of our Homeland, our lives, our worldly possessions, and our influence as Children of God and citizens of The Sudan.
The Constitution of the United Tribes of The Sudan
"Preamble", or introduction, (the opening paragraph) stating the purposes, or limits to jurisdiction
Article 1: The House of Representatives and Senate
Article 2: The President
Article 3: The Courts
Article 4: Relationship of Tribes to each other and to federal government; Article 5: Process for amending Constitution; Article 6: Authority of this Constitution, and legitimacy of debts; Article 7: Process for ratifying this Constitution
We the people of the United states of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the people, of the United Tribes of Sudan, create this Constitution and limit it to the following purposes: to create a framework of cooperation between tribes that is fair to all Tribes, to set up courts and police to deal with crimes across tribal boundaries, to provide armed forces ready to defend the United Tribes from external military threats, to help Tribes do together what they cannot do alone, and to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our children. This Constitution does not authorize interference with the internal matters of Tribes. The federal government has no business telling Tribes how to treat their own citizens. Whatever happens within the borders of Tribes, that doesn't affect other Tribes, is not the business of the Federal Government.
Explanation: This introduction limited the powers of the federal government compared with the power of the states, but over the generations it has been so redefined that the U.S. Federal Government has become like a dictator to the states. The "General Welfare" clause, for example, originally meant general concerns of all the states as opposed to concerns within the internal business of states. For example, what one Tribe chooses to do with its resources to promote sports, the arts, or to feed the poor, is not the business of any other tribe, and the federal government has no business telling any Tribe how it ought to treat its own citizens. This meaning of "general welfare" was discussed much and well understood 200 years ago, but it has been bastardized into authority for the federal congress to provide welfare programs for individuals. The original federal government provided postal service, minting of coins, and printed Bibles for use in the new territories; other than such services which no individual state could provide, states cared for their own people and the federal government stayed out of the way.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Tribes, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The Congress of the United Tribes, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, is the only body authorized by this Constitution to create laws.
Explanation: In other words, the President and the Supreme Court can't write laws. The President can veto laws, thus forcing Congress to pass them by a 2/3 majority rather than just a "simple" majority (over 50%). But the President can't write a law. Actually today presidents write "Administrative Laws" which "only" federal bureaucrats must obey; but as the federal government grows to cover nearly 1/3 of U.S. land, and as federal inspectors swarm over business and property across America writing rules, levying fines, and seizing property, a President's "administrative rules" increasingly have jurisdiction over all of us. The Supreme Court reviews laws and decides whether they are constitutional, and even orders lawmakers to write different laws! But neither of these powers is Constitutional. The Constitution gave the Supreme Court authority only over the cases before it, and gave Congress the authority to keep the Supreme Court away from certain cases. Yet today our Supreme Court overturns laws it doesn't like and writes new ones which all America meekly obeys!
This language doesn't reduce the lawmaking authority of Tribal Councils, which do not need to be authorized by this Constitution, since they were authorized centuries to create laws before it.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature
Members of the House of Representatives will be elected every two years by the people. Candidates must be at least as qualified as members of their Tribe's largest lawmaking body.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives must be at least 25 years old, a citizen of The Sudan at least 7 years, and must live in the Tribe where he was elected, at the time of the election.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective populations.
The populations of the Tribes will determine how many Representatives they have in Congress, and how much taxes the Tribes owe directly to the U.T.S. government.
Explanation: originally the federal government did not collect taxes from individuals; thus the federal government had no excuse to keep everybody's name and address, or to track the movements of every citizen. "Direct Taxes" meant taxes paid directly by states to the federal government.
...which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Refugees in the Bush, and in refugee camps, who do not pay taxes to the Tribes, and do not participate in elections, will not be counted as part of the populations of the Tribes.
(Explanation: the original constitution did not require census takers to go out and count Indians, who might not have answered the census questions peacefully! "Those bound to service for a term of years" meant people in debt who had to work full time for years to pay off the debt. We don't handle debts that way today. "all other Persons" meant the black slaves in the South. Some have complained because the Constitution only counted Blacks as 3/5 of a person. Just the opposite: to count them at all didn't mean respect for Blacks, but greater power for the slave owners. To be precise, 3/5 more Representatives in Congress for the slaveholders, than were Blacks not counted. On the other hand the slave owners had to pay 3/5 more taxes, too. Surely the slaves wished their masters had received NO more power at their expense! As it turned out, those extra votes enabled the South to defeat Northern efforts to abolish slavery, right up to the Civil War. Thankfully we do not need to address that problem today.)
The actual Enumeration be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.
The Census, which shall record only the NUMBER of eligible voters, shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United Tribes, and every 10 years afterwards, as Congress directs by law.
(Explanation: although the U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically limit the amount of information which census workers can record, it was understood then that a government able to monitor its citizens is a tyranny, so the first Census recorded only last names and how many in each county had that same name. Exodus 30:12-16 attaches grave importance to conducting a Census so it is not only accurate, but so that not even names are recorded: every citizen gives a fixed sum of money, and only the money is counted. In each region, every citizen walks through a line and drops his money, too quickly for any scribe to record his name. His chief is there, who will know if anyone is missing. The chief is motivated to get everyone there because the more people, the more power for the region; but the chief is not motivated to empty his purse into the pot to create fictitious voters, because the sum of money required to significantly increase his power would make him poor. God placed so much emphasis on this system that He said the money actually constituted "a ransom for his soul, that there be no plague among them". A "ransom" is something which buys freedom for someone in captivity, and certainly this system "buys" safety from dictators. In The Sudan today, it is unlikely that any census done any other way will be accurate, because people will not come out of the Bush to give their names, lest their political enemies find them and kill them. But they will give something of value, if they have it, if they are known only by their own chiefs, in order to give their own people representation. But with no money in circulation throughout much of The Sudan, I don't know what every man could afford to give. A cow would surely be unreasonable to expect of many.)
The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
There will be no more than one Representative for every fifty thousand population, although each tribe shall have at least one. Until the first census is conducted, the Tribe of the _____ shall be entitled to choose ______, , the Tribe of the _____ shall be entitled to choose ______, , the Tribe of the _____ shall be entitled to choose ______, (etc). (Sudanese should list all the tribes and estimate proportionate numbers of representatives according to population, even for this discussion draft) Index of Peoples in Sudan
(Explanation: The following list of Northern Tribes was from a Joshua Project website. So far I haven't found a website with Tribes and populations of the South. Sudanese refugees assume these figures are wild guesses, and indicate there are many more tribes even in just the North than are listed here: probably 500 total, with Tribe populations as low as 300.
(The challenge of this paragraph is to come up with a formula that won't fill our meeting hall with 10,000 Congressmen. At the rate of one per 50,000 population, then if 10 million of Sudan's 35 million population come under the UTS, there will be 200 Congressmen representing that population, plus perhaps another 200 from tribes of 20,000 or less. The United States presently has 425 Congressmen. The preceding paragraph from the U.S. Constitution lists 65 Congressmen, based on one per 30,000 population, so the U.S. population then must have been about 1,950,000. As U.S. population has grown, the population required to authorize one Congressmen has been raised, so that now states have one Congressman per about 600,000 population. When the time is close for ratifying this Constitution, so that Sudanese have a better idea how many people it will represent, more reasonable proportions can be inserted in this paragraph.
(Amri 47,000, Anuak 52,000, Arabized Burun 18,000, Arabized Ghulfan 16,000, Arabized Karko 13,000, Arabized Mararit 20,000, Arabized Midob (Tidda) 30,000, Arabized Nyimang 70,000, Arabized Tagale 35,700, Arabized Temein 10,000, Arabized Tira 40,000, Arabized Zaghawa 102,000, Atwot 25,000, Awlad Hassan, 58,000, Awlad Mana 102,000, Batahin 155,000, Bederia 581,000, Beni-Amer (Beja) 1,907,000, Burun (Barun, Borun) 18,000, Dar Fur Daju 70,000, Dar Hamid 465,000, Dar Sila Daju 33,000, Didinga (Xaroxa,Toi) 58,000, Dinka, Central 29,000, Dubasiyin 65,000, Fezara 203,000, Fulani, (Sudanese Fula) 130,000, Fur (Furawi) 500,000, Gaaliin 1,950,000, Gawamaa 601,000, Ghulfan (Gulfan) 16,000, Gimma 99,000, Guhayna 904,000, Gule (Fung, Hameg) 17,000, Gumuz (Debatsa) 40,000, Habbania (Baggara) 215,000, Hamar 262,000, Hasania 458,000, Hausa Fulani 418,000, Hawawir 150,000, Husseinat 99,000, Ingessana (Tabi) 30,000, Kababish 241,000, Kanuri, Yerwa 195,000, Katla (Akalak) 14,200, Kawahla (Fezara) 599,000, Kenuzi-Dongolese Nubi 200,000, Kerarish 27,000, Koma, Central (Komo) 10,000, , Krongo Nuba 21,700, Lahawin 98,000, Liri 38,000, Maalia 69,000, Maba (Borgu, Mabang) 47,000, Maban (Jumjum, Wadega) 25,000, Maban-Jumjum (Meban) 25,000, Maghrib Arab 139,000, Mararit (Abiyi, Ebiri, Masalit) 20,000, Masalit 145,000, Mesakin (Masakin) 38,000, Messiria (Baggara) 0, Midob (Meidob, Tiddi) 30,000, Mima (Mimi) 74,000, Mongallese Arab 60,000, Murle (Boma) 60,000, Nyimang (Nyima, Ama) 70,000, Pari (Lokoro) 28,000, Rashaida 68,000, Rizeiqat (Habbania) 248,000, Rufaa (Rufaiyin) 356,000, Selim (Baggara) 38,000, Shaikia 613,000, Shatt (Daju) 15,000, Sherifi 112,000, Shukria 164,000, Sudanese Arab 3,657,000, Sungor (Assagori) 15,000, Swahili 9,000, Tagale (Taqalawin) 35,700, Tagoi (Moreb) 13,000, Tama (Gimr) 60,000, Tamongobo 60,000, Temein 10,000, Tigre 400,000, Tira (Thiro) 40,000, Tornasi 50,000, Tungur 163,000, Yazeed 0, Yemeni Arab 15,000, Zaghawa 102,000)
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.
When Representatives die or quit, the Chiefs of their tribes shall call an election to replace them.
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
The House of Representatives shall choose its own officers. Only the House has authority to initiate an "impeachment", or trial of the President, a federal judge, a Senator, or a Representative, for noncriminal offenses.
(Explanation: In other words, before any Federal official can be "impeached", whether a President, a Judge, a Senator, or a Representative, the House must "indict" the offender; that is, must determine that the man should stand trial. Later the Constitution explains that after the House "impeaches" (indicts) someone, only the Senate can "try" the impeachment (conduct the trial). When Bill Clinton was impeached, people said impeachment should only be for criminal offenses. But this paragraph proves otherwise. It says only the House of Representatives can Impeach. Well, if impeachments were only for criminal offenses, that wouldn't be true, because as we saw last year, not even Presidents are immune from prosecution, in ordinary courts, for felonies. But the purpose of impeachment is to remove a politician from office for actions which are not quite crimes, but are scandalous enough to tarnish the work of Congress.)
Section 3. The Senate of the United Tribes shall be composed of one Senator from each tribe, chosen by the Tribal Council thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
(Explanation: The U.S. Constitution provides two senators for each state, which means 100 Senators for our current 50 states. Since there are 500 tribes in Sudan, and it might be realistic to hope 300 of them might join, Sudanese might consider 300 Senators a more manageable figure than 600.
(A later Amendment caused U.S. Senators to be elected by the people directly. But American experience throws doubt on whether that was a better idea. We see how the candidate, in order to become known to that many more people, requires that much more money for transportation, literature, and other communication, which means he is more vulnerable to bribes. In the original system, people elected their own state legislators, who were local men they knew; and their legislators had a better opportunity to get to know, and to discern, who would best represent their state in Washington. In The Sudan, it will be a reasonable goal for almost any candidate for Congress to become known by 50,000 countrymen, but it will be impractical, because of poor transportation and communication, for any but the most popular of candidates for Senate to present his vision to millions. Much easier to let the Tribal Councils, already in place, select their representatives.
(The second reason the original system would better serve Sudan is that just as the 13 states were very reluctant to give their power to a government of outsiders, even so the Tribes will not let other tribes rule over them. The tribal councils will preserve their representation in the "federal", or "coalition" government by themselves choosing their representatives; they can select men they know well, whom they can trust. But asking all the citizens of a tribe to elect only two men to represent the whole tribe leads to the selection of men many never know, who may not serve the interests of the tribe, and who may even be funded from outside the tribe. A candidate can more easily confuse millions of citizens who barely know him, than a few dozen sharp leaders who know him intimately. One wins support of millions with his wealth; one wins support of a few wise men with his reputation.)
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United Tribes and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that Tribe for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United Tribes shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try (conduct the trial of) all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation (they shall be "on their oath"; or, they shall swear to tell the truth.) When the President of the United Tribes is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United Tribes: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each Tribe by the Tribal Councils thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Explanation: When the Constitution was first proposed, some worried that Congress might make elections difficult by, for example, making everyone in Des Moines drive to Waterloo to vote. But what political gain would there be, at so great a cost of angering so great a population? This gives the Tribes the initial chance to pick the time, place, and method of voting, but gives Congress opportunity to amend them. This wouldn't let Congress just pick on one or two states, because it would have to be by a law which applies to all the states. For example, after the 2000 election, there was serious talk in Congress about making Florida keep its polls open an hour longer so poll announcements don't prejudice voters still on the way to the polls farther West. The place of choosing Senators is not given to Congress, since the first Senators were not chosen directly by the People, but by the state legislatures.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence (vote) of two thirds, expel a member.
Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
Each house shall publish a public record of everything said and done, except for what they think requires secrecy; a record showing the votes of each member shall be kept whenever at least 1/5 of the members request it.
Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Senators and Representatives shall be paid the amount they set for themselves by passing a law, paid out of the U.T.S. treasury. During sessions, and while traveling to and from sessions, they shall be immune from arrest for any crime except treason, disturbing the peace, or any felony. They may not be interrogated, by any other government official, for any position they take during a session.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United Tribes, which shall have been created, or the emoluments (benefits, or salaries) whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United Tribes, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
(Explanation: This is to avoid creating an incentive for a lawmaker to use his influence to create a job with a fat salary, in anticipation that he himself may take it.)
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Only the House of Representatives may create a law that requires spending taxpayers' money. But once the House passes a "revenue bill", and sends it to the Senate, the Senate can try to amend it just like any other bill. (Of course, if the House refuses to approve the amendment, the bill will die.)
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United Tribes; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
When a bill is passed by both House and Senate (and both pass the same version, or both have agreed to the same amendments), the bill will go to the President. If he approves he will sign it and it will be law. If he objects, he will return it with his objections. The chamber where the bill began will enter the President's objections in its record, and will reconsider the bill. If that chamber approves the bill by a 2/3 vote, it will send the bill to the other chamber. If the second chamber also approves it by a 2/3 vote, the bill will become law. A complete vote record will be kept in the public record. If the President doesn't sign the bill into law, but neither does he return it within 10 days (excluding Sunday) it will still become law, just as if he had signed it. But if the reason the President could not return the bill to Congress is that Congress has adjourned, the bill will not be law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Tribes; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Every other matter requiring approval of both Senate and House shall go before the President in the same manner as bills. The only exception is adjournment of Congress.
(Congress can go home any time it chooses, without waiting for the President's opinion.)
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Congress (the House & the Senate) shall have power to tax Tribal Councils (which will be responsible for collecting the money from their tribe; the federal government will have no authority to take money from individual citizens), factories and imports. The only lawful purpose for collecting taxes will be: to pay federal debts, to supply military forces during war, and to help tribes do together only what they cannot do alone. Tribes will pay differing amounts of taxes because tax will be based on population, but all other tax rates shall be uniform throughout the United Tribes. (They shall not be "graduated" according to income.) Specifically, the authority of Congress is limited to the following list:
(Explanation: The federal government could not tax individuals until 1913 with the 16th Amendment. Before that, federal taxes were collected directly from state governments, besides taxing factories and imports. ["lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises"] When the U.S. Government got the right to tax individuals, it acquired a constantly updated database of every citizen's whereabouts and personal business, and the ability of state legislatures to boycott federal waste was lost. Now our federal government makes thousands of rules the states must follow in every detail of their work, and there is very little the state governments can do. Likewise in the Sudan, if you let the President collect taxes from each citizen, you will give him the power to become your dictator; but if you make him take his money from your tribal councils, your Tribal Council will remain the primary government over its own people, and your Tribal Council will remain politically strong enough to stand against federal abuses of power.)
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
(Congress shall have power) To borrow money, using, for collateral, its ability to collect future taxes;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To negotiate uniform standards governing trade with foreign nations, and trade that crosses Tribal borders, and trade with refugees in Refugee Camps and in the Bush (although Congress will have no jurisdiction over trade, or transportation, or any other commerce that takes place within a Tribe's borders);
Explanation: this is the famous "commerce clause" which judges have twisted into authority for the Federal government to become a dictator over the states. Originally the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to do things like build roads and canals that crossed state lines. Later came railroads, telegraph lines, and radio. Air traffic controllers are an example of a legitimate Federal function, since planes take off in one tribe and land in another, and therefore need uniform ground communication procedures. The FCC is another example, since there are many more radio and TV stations that would like to transmit, than there is available air space, and since radio and TV signals cross state lines. The FCC decides who may go on the air, and under what rules.
But in most situations, industries create uniform standards better without federal involvement. When railroads began, they made tracks of several different widths, so that a locomotive built for one could not operate on another. It wasn't federal involvement, but the industry itself, that decided on a standard width. Had Congress decided on a width, I hate to think what it would have been!
A modern example of commerce which crosses state lines which develops its own standards far better than had Congress intervened, is computer languages, and television signals. NTSC is the American standard for TV signals: it means 29.97 frames per second. Europe uses PAL, at 25 frames per second. Film is 24 frames per second. The industry has just agreed on a HDTV standard. Minor refinements may lie ahead, but 5 years ago, it was so unsettled that you couldn't buy an expensive HDTV camera with confidence that consumers would have TV's in the future that could use your TV signal. I can't imagine what we would have if the FCC had dictated the signal!
Well actually the FCC did require, several years ago, that in about another year or two, all local TV stations would have to stop broadcasting NTSC (what your set uses) and switch to HDTV. This is not going to happen for several reasons. Only about 15% of TV viewers receive their TV signals through the air any more! The rest receive their signals through cable lines and from satellites. So the tremendous expense of building new HDTV transmission towers, much more expensive than existing towers, plus the expensive zoning battles as stations fight city hall over where to build their towers where neighborhoods will find them "beautiful", just for 15% of their market, is impractical. Another pressure is that network TV has become so depressingly immoral that almost a majority of viewers are turning to reruns of old shows. Old shows can be converted to an HDTV signal, but after going to the expense, the picture is no better. It's like taking an old scratchy record and putting it on a CD; you still hear the scratches. This foolish decision of the FCC illustrates the harm that results from federal involvement.
Better standards are developed by just letting the engineers and investors experiment until they come up with the best combination. Can you imagine where America would be today, if while Edison was trying to invent the light bulb, Congress had told him what material he needed to use for a filament?
What more legitimate area of FCC involvement could there be than telephones? They certainly cross state lines, and uniformity of standards is required for all states to benefit. 30 years ago the FCC regulated not only standards, but rates. It caused so many problems that Congress finally "deregulated" the industry. As soon as they did, creativity was released. The industry immediately started planning new inventions they weren't really free to do much with before. Cable TV and the Internet rose from that freedom. Cell phones, and fiber optic cables, would likely have come much later had the FCC remained in the business.
Federal involvement in state internal matters trickled in until 1932, when President Franklin Roosevelt illegally opened the floodgates. He did it by adding Supreme Court justices beyond the 9 which had been America's tradition, until he had enough justices willing to approve the radical expansion of federal government powers which he had bullied through Congress. Let me just list a few of the types of unconstitutional programs he created, so you can see the choice before you: do you want a government like America has now, or would you prefer genuine freedom?
First is Social Security. Before that, elderly people had much lower property taxes so they could better afford to live in their homes. Those that couldn't could move to "County Homes", nursing homes paid for by counties. Now we have a system where the federal government collects about 16% taxes on every dollar earned, including incomes so low they are exempt from "income taxes"; the government promptly wastes 80% of it, gives half the rest to young people who are physically strong and healthy but have a bad attitude about working, pays old people about 10% of what they would have received had they spent the same money on private insurance policies, and then "borrows" the rest to pay other bills rather than saving it for future needs. Which system do you want for Sudan? Do you want Tribes to care for their own poor by whatever means they think good? Or would you like the federal government to take that money out of the Tribal economy, waste 80% of it, and then be a combined Scrooge and Santa Clause to your grandparents?
Another invention of Roosevelt was the Farm Program. Before Roosevelt, farmers lived off the land and sold their surplus. In good years, when the supply exceeded demand, prices were lower, but since overall expenses were low, farmers did well. In bad years, farmers suffered and waited for good years. One of the first things Roosevelt did to change this was to preside over how banks recovered from the 1929 Depression. Many banks went bankrupt because when people came to draw money out of their savings and checking accounts, banks didn't have enough. Of course, people who had borrowed from the same banks still had those loans to repay. Other banks would "buy" those outstanding loans from the bankrupt banks, but courts excused them from repaying the debts owed BY the bank! What a system! So if a farmer had a $1,000 loan, but also had $1,000 in a retirement account, the farmer lost his $1,000 savings, but still had to repay the loan! After a few years of this, much of America's farmland was now owned by banks! (My source: the stories of my grandparents, who lost their farm during that time.) As this was going on, Roosevelt was busy taking America off the Gold Standard. Before that, paper money was backed by gold; in other words, there was a dollar's worth of gold or silver stored by the U.S. for every paper dollar printed, or no more was printed; and it could be exchanged for gold or silver, which had a stable value, so that America suffered virtually no inflation or deflation from 1800 to 1930. Roosevelt made it illegal to own gold! He seized it all! And gave us paper dollars unbacked by gold. That way he could print as many as he wanted, which created dramatic inflation. In order to create some token restraint on his printing of paper money, he decided to "back" the money with the value of the farmland owned by the banks! (Don't ask me exactly how THAT worked.) Well, about this time farmers were in debt up to their eyeballs, trying to pay interest on their new loans with the banks, at higher rates of interest because of inflation, and there were a couple of bad years, so Roosevelt decided it was time to "help" the farmers. He created the Farm Program. In the Farm Program, the problem Roosevelt meant to attack was the problem of oversupply. If there wasn't enough food, he reasoned, then hungry people would be willing to pay more for food, and then farmers would make more profit on the portion they sold. So Roosevelt's Farm Program literally paid farmers to keep certain acres idle! This program has gone through so many changes since then that merely growing crops and cows is an insignificant part of the work of farmers today. They need a Ph.D. in government programs and the Chicago Board of Trade. They need to stay in debt for ever larger tracters so ever fewer farmers can cultivate ever more acres, because the profit margin is too low for a small farm to support a family. Taxes are through the roof because taxes are based on the resale value of the land for "development" (building houses and shopping malls), not on the profit made from the land, and certainly the taxes don't drop in bad years when there is no profit! Which system do you prefer for Sudan? The original U.S. Constitution? Or "Roosevelt's Constitution"?
Today Bill Salier, an Iowa farmer, is well on the way to replacing Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, and one of his issues is ending the farm program. The program is so irrational that it is worth reprinting a letter from Roosevelt's time about it (I got this version off the internet. I read an almost identical version of it over 40 years ago):
To:USDA From:Bubba Dear Sirs:
My friend, Ed Person, way up in Wells, Iowa, received a check for $1,000 from the Government for not raising hogs. So, I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year. What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hog not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise Razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs. As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised. My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs. If I get $1,000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2,000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane. Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn or wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat or corn not to feed the 4,000 hogs I am not going to raise? Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too. In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps.
Sincerely yours, Bubba. P.S. I will call for an appointment
Roosevelt has turned the "Commerce clause" into not just authority to create uniform standards, but authority to micromanage every detail of every human activity remotely connected with commerce. For example, if someone blocks an abortionist's door, that is the business of the laws of that state. But today the Supreme Court says if someone crosses a state line to block an abortionist's door, then it is the business of federal marshals, and the state police can do nothing to stop them! By thousands of such rulings, federal laws have been created that duplicate almost every state law, and state laws have been ordered changed to suit federal unelected bureaucrats, when the connection to any kind of interstate commerce was very, very remote.
The original U.S. Constitution only authorizes Congress "to regulate commerce...among the several states". That is, "to regulate interstate commerce."
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United Tribes;
To establish immigration laws that are uniform (as opposed to each tribe having different immigration laws), and uniform bankruptcy laws throughout the United Tribes;
Explanation: In order that citizens may move freely and safely throughout the United Tribes, enjoying the blessings of liberty and economic opportunity, the citizens of each tribe must have all the rights of citizenship given by every other tribe. This could not happen if immigrants admitted as citizens to one tribe are not recognized as citizens by another tribe. Likewise, tribal union requires uniform bankruptcy laws. Otherwise a poor man might owe debts to members of two or more tribes, and would have to go to the courts of all those tribes.
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To print paper, and mint metal money, regulate the value of money, and to fix the rate of exchange with foreign money;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United Tribes;
To punish counterfeiting;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To establish post offices, and roads that link tribes;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To establish a Copyright Office that gives inventors and authors a monopoly on the use of their own creations, for a limited time;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To create and govern federal courts below the Supreme Court;
(Explanation: the Constitution defines the Supreme Court, but Congress -- the House & Senate -- creates, defines, and populates the system of lower federal courts which appeal to the Supreme Court.)
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To define and punish aggression against the UTS outside its borders, or in the air;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To declare war against foreign nations. To commission citizens or agents to satisfy wrongs committed by citizens of another nation (examples: to retrieve stolen property, arrest a spy, or defend a disputed border). To make rules defining how such actions should be conducted.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To raise and supply armies (only when war is declared) consisting of full time soldiers; but no appropriation of money for the army shall supply them longer than two years.
Explanation: This is one of the clauses that keeps the army under civilian control. An American general cannot take control of the civilian government, because he would run out of money in two years. He has no efficient means of collecting taxes without the civilian government. Were he to attempt to wage war against civilians, the economy would hopelessly crumble; but worse, he could not win, because Americans are armed, thanks to the second amendment; and if he committed so great a crime as a takeover of civilian government, Americans would fight. (I hope.) And even if the President and Congress tried to use the army to take over America, the people could vote out Congress in less than two years. Even if Congress were to cancel elections, this provision of the Constitution is a valuable aid to the People, because it would prevent Congress and the President from a gradual takeover. Being forced to cancel elections would be like being forced to declare war: it would serve notice to Americans that the time to fight has come, if they are to remain free.
Notice this provides for "raising" armies. In other words, not just increasing troop strength, but raising an army where there was no army before. This wouldn't make sense if there had been a standing army even in time of peace; but it was assumed that armies would only be raised when war was declared, and they would be disbanded when peace returned. When the constitution was written, it was a principle accepted by all that an army which remains on duty even in time of peace is a giant step towards dictatorship. That's why the preceding wording about appropriations no longer than two years implies that armies were regarded as temporary. The following provisions explain that the part-time citizen militia would be the first called to repel invaders, because they would be already prepared; while a full time army would take time to train. In other words, it is the part-time citizen militia upon which the nation fundamentally relies for protection; but when additional forces are needed, a full time army can then be raised. Presumably the army would consist largely of militia members who simply transfer from part-time status as militia troops to full-time status as army troops.
To provide and maintain a navy;
To provide and maintain an air force;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To regulate land and air forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for deputizing and arming a citizen militia, (consisting of part-time soldiers who prepare for emergencies), to enforce laws, stop rebellions (of UTS citizens), and repel invasions (of foreign troops).
Explanation: in the Second Amendment we are reminded that the "militia" consists, not of a standing, taxpayer-supported army, but of well-armed citizens. In other words, the scenario is not of a dictator able to put down a popular uprising; but of well armed, law abiding citizens uniting against a few criminals.
Notice it is not the President which can call forth the militia to put down an insurrection, but Congress. Give one man a gun, and he can shoot in any direction without shooting himself. Give 600 men a gun, and they will take greater care where it is pointed. Even so, a President with an army can be a dictator. But Congress, with an army, would take so long to agree where to send it and who to shoot, that the army would be "sitting ducks" for its enemies. That is why the President commands the army, because he can make strategic decisions quickly and secretly. But only Congress can commit the army to the President's leadership for a war. The decision whether to go to war should always be made carefully; but the details of how to fight should be made as quickly as fighting conditions change.
A national defense founded on part-time militia rather than full time army troops helps guarantee freedom. Full time troops, whose only paycheck comes from their superiors, can more easily be pressured into terrorizing their own neighbors, at the orders of a would-be dictator, than part time militia who receive most of their pay from their civilian jobs and who, by obeying a dictator, would be attacking not only family and neighbors, but employers and customers who give them their paychecks! Israel demonstrates how effective part-time citizen forces can be.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To provide rules for organizing, arming, and disciplining a part-time citizen militia, and for commanding those serving the United Tribes. But the individual Tribes retain all authority to appoint officers of their own troops, and to train their own troops, though according to the discipline ordered by Congress;
(Explanation: .It is in the interest of every tribe that Congress sets training standards, because troops from different tribes cannot serve side by side if they have been trained very differently. But notice the structure which prevents tyranny: the federal may "hire" some of the citizens, but the states (Tribes) appoint the officers! The federal may specify the type of training, but the Tribes conduct the training! In other words, the careful wording of this paragraph guarantees that the federal army can never use the militia to fight the Tribes! This also means that a general cannot stack his forces with officers from his own tribe.
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, ports, and other needful buildings;--And
To enact all laws governing all UTS land: including (1) whatever area may become the seat of the government of the UTS (not exceeding ten miles square) with the approval of Congress and the Tribe(s) providing the land; (2) other lands purchased by Congress, with the approval of the Tribes providing the land, for military bases, munitions factories, airports, and other needed buildings; And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
To make whatever laws are required to carry out the preceding responsibilities, and all other responsibilities created, by this Constitution, for the UTS Government, or any department of the government, or any bureaucrat of the government.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the tribes now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Section 9. Congress may tax immigration, not exceeding two hundred dollars per immigrant. Although Congress will establish uniform immigration standards, any tribe may permit as much immigration as it thinks proper, for 20 years after ratification of this Constitution.
Explanation: Slaves captured from the Sudan and imported into the South to be sold were among the "persons" which Congress would promise not to prohibit until 1808. There was very heated controversy between the Northern and Southern states over this compromise. This language actually says that after 1808, the Congress would then be free to outlaw slavery. The Northern states thought this would easily happen; they thought slavery was so economically impractical, besides spiritually so depraved, that the entire institution of slavery would inevitably collapse of its own weight within a few years. Many today think the same thing about abortion. Of course, by 1808, the South had enough people in Congress to keep that from happening, partly because each of their slaves increased their representation in Congress 3/5 as much as a free citizen. Obviously we do not need that provision in the UTS constitution! The other issue dealt with here is the earlier provision that Congress will set rules for immigration. This paragraph says these rules will not override the rules of each Tribe for 20 years after ratification of the Constitution.
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.
The right of every person to a fair and speedy trial, before he may be held in prison for longer than necessary to process his trial, shall not be suspended, except when rebellion or invasion makes the calling of witnesses, and the assembling of jurors, unsafe.
(Explanation: "habeas corpus" means "produce the body". It applies when no reason was ever given for arresting a man; or when a man rots in jail way past the time he should have been given a fair trial. In that case, others can intercede for him by telling a judge to "bring this body" into the court to see why he is still there, and to give him a fair trial. Habeas Corpus was suspended during the Civil War, 1860-1864: both sides had Prisoner of War camps where soldiers could not be released because they would just go back to their own armies and start shooting again. They couldn't exactly have a fair trial, because the witnesses would have to come from opposing armies still engaged in battle. The South had a prisoner camp where conditions were so terrible a book was written about it by the name of the town where it was: "Andersonville".
It is dangerous to say Habeas Corpus can be suspended for any reason, because a would-be dictator can look for excuses to suspend it. He can interpret minor protests as major "rebellions", for example. Of course suspension of habeas corpus certainly is required in the midst of a major invasion, so I don't know how this language can be improved upon; but understand the dangers, and don't weaken it even a little.)
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Congress shall never punish anyone who hasn't been found guilty in a fair trial, and Congress shall not pass any law which applies to actions taken before the law was passed.
(Explanation: "ex post facto" means "after the fact". Because of this clause, a legislature can't pass a law against some action, and then arrest people who did that action before the law was passed. At least that isn't supposed to happen. But if you are from an unpopular minority, or you are a prolifer trying to stop abortion, you know it is routine to be arrested and charged for actions which no one in the world would have imagined was a crime, until the policeman saw you doing it and wanted some reason to arrest you.)
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Any tax which Congress requires the Tribal Councils to pay, must be based on the populations of the respective tribes. Even taxes on real estate that are levied by Congress must be proportioned among the tribes, not on the basis of property value, or wealth, but on the basis of their populations. There will be no "graduated" taxes based on wealth.
(Explanation: "capitation" means a tax based on the number of persons. This refers to the tax which the federal government collected from the state governments. "Direct taxes" means real estate taxes. (These definitions come from Webster's original dictionary, published in 1843, the year of his death at age 85. As one of the authors of the Constitution, he was in a good position to understand what its words mean.) As applied to Sudan, the federal ("coalition") government will not apportion taxes according to the wealth of the respective tribes, but according to their populations. America's Founders understood that a "graduated" tax, based on wealth, penalizes the wealthy, rewards the unproductive, and thus discourages people from becoming successful. But even worse than discouraging success, a "graduated" tax, based on wealth, lets the government require every individual to not only report how much they make, but to prove how much they make. This gives potential tyrants the information they need to dominate. If a government were to collect $1,000 from every man, woman, and child whether he made nothing or made a billion dollars last year, that would be unreasonable; but the original U.S. Constitution doesn't do that. It leaves it to the states (tribal councils) to collect the taxes, and the tribal councils were free to collect it on any basis. A flat percentage, say 10% of income, would have been fair. In fact, God's model government takes 10% of income for church and the judiciary combined, Ezekiel 44:24, and less than 1% for all other government functions, Ezekiel 45:13-16. (Actually, only 1/60th of the wheat and barley, 1% of olive oil, 0.5% of sheep, and nothing else.) It is better for the Tribal Council to collect federal taxes, than for Congress to send its own tax collectors out. The Tribal Council is already close to its people, already knows where they are. It is good for the Federal Government to never learn where individuals are, so that it may never have a good opportunity to conquer or absorb the tribes.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No tariff (tax on imported products) shall be taxed on products exported from any Tribe.
(Explanation: this clause made America economically strong. There is free trade between all the states. If no export from any state can be taxed, then all imports FROM other states cannot be taxed. Exports were thus encouraged; while only imports from foreign countries paid customs duties.)
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the airports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United Tribes: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
(Explanation: at the time of the U.S. Constitution, America was alone, in the world, in rejecting the concept of hereditary authority over other men; that is, royalty. It may be that some Sudanese tribe will choose to pass down leadership by heredity, but this paragraph would not prevent an individual tribe doing anything it likes; it would only prevent the federal "coalition" government from creating hereditary lines of authority over the Tribes. However, if you want to allow individual tribes to do this, you will need to strike the last phrase of the following paragraph.)
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No Tribe shall sign a treaty, or become an ally, with a foreign nation. No Tribe shall commission citizens or agents to satisfy wrongs committed by citizens of another nation. No Tribe shall print paper or mint metal money, go into debt, allow debts to be paid by paper money unbacked by silver, gold, or cows, punish anybody who has not been found guilty in a fair trial, pass a law applying to actions before the law's passage, pass a law that undermines contracts, or give anyone privileges beyond what all men have the potential to earn as a reward for their service.
(Explanation: Sudan has gold, so paper money backed by gold (where Sudan stores gold and prints only enough paper money to equal the value of the gold, so that anyone might at any time exchange their paper money for an equivalent value of gold) is achievable, and would make it one of the most reliable currencies in the world. But no backing of money would make much sense in Sudan unless it could include cows. But with paper money, you could "make change". That is, for example, you could have paper money in small units, such that 200 of them, for example, might be exchanged for one cow. In that way you could buy and sell, with accuracy, things much less valuable than an entire cow. Maybe you could call them "cowbills".
When the U.S. was on the gold standard, it could not circulate paper money until it had enough gold to cover it. In the same way, if Sudan prints paper money backed by cows, the UTS will have to own many cows to equal the value of the paper money. It may not be in Sudanese interest to go heavily into the cow business.
Another alternative, practiced for centuries before the U.S. issued "gold certificates", was for banks to issue "gold certificates" equal to the value of the gold they held in their safes. In that way, people could conveniently exchange money without carrying heavy metals about with them all the time. Individual farmers could do this. They could be authorized to issue certificates equal to the value of their cows, yet would keep the cows in their possession until someone wants to exchange his paper for a cow. This would be a way a farmer could sell all or part of a cow, while keeping possession of the cow for breeding or milking until it is redeemed. Others who don't have cows would then have a sound medium of exchange for less valuable goods and services.
But what if one farmer sells certificates worth half a cow, and his neighbor does the same, and one man has both certificates and wants to redeem them for a cow? And what if the farmer doesn't want to sell? I'm just trying to be creative here in the absence of any knowledge of any human experience in this, but perhaps the law could say that any farmer who sells certificates for part of a cow is required to exchange one cow in exchange for other certificates totaling the value of one cow. But after that, he is not required to sell any more, although of course if he did he would receive valuable certificates in exchange.
U.S. money, today, is backed by nothing but everybody's faith that it is worth something. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is appointed to, I think, a 12 term by whoever is President when the last one steps down, and his principal power over the economy is to adjust the Prime Lending Rate, the rate at which the Federal Reserve will lend money to banks. This indirectly controls how much paper money will be added or taken to the U.S. money supply, which determines whether we will have inflation or deflation.
The Chairman has this enormous power over the U.S. economy, and yet he is accountable to no one! He may not be removed from office by the President, Congress, or the Courts! Though most of the rest of U.S. Government is a Republic (a representative government under the rule of law), the Fed Chairman alone has the power of a King for 12 years!
News reporters treat the current chairman, Allan Greenspan, as if he is (1) absolutely trustworthy, and (2) extremely wise, but it may be partly out of fear, since it does little good to complain about your King.
But there are three great dangers with this system: (1) the Chairman might not be absolutely trustworthy. He might not like the current president, so he might hurt the economy just before he faces re-election. Or he might tell his financial friends when he is going to change rates again, so they can sell or buy stock accordingly and make fortunes. (2) He might not always be extremely wise. He might even be human, on occasion. Even with the best intentions, he might make decisions that hurt the economy. In fact, he might become consistently foolish, and there is nothing for the nation, and the rest of the world whose economies rise and fall with the U.S. economy, to do but go into worldwide depression!
By going off the gold standard, and yet desiring stability in a paper economy, we now have an extremely complicated, and extremely vulnerable, economy. It was not that way in the original U.S. Constitution. U.S. money was backed by gold until about 1933, when Roosevelt made it a crime to own gold! U.S. money was the most stable in the world, there was nothing complicated about it, and there was no inflation or deflation. Even today, though most of the world's currencies are paper with no backing, there are traces of sanity. Israel has, or is moving towards, a money backed by the ancient silver shekel. 10 years ago, news articles indicated even Russia, whose money was really floundering then and yet which has much gold, seriously considered returning to the gold standard.
With cows already an established medium of exchange in Sudan, it may be the most natural thing for Sudan to establish a currency with real backing, rather than worthless paper. Greedy politicians prefer worthless paper for their money, because they can have many clever devices for controlling it. So everyone else in the world who wishes their country would return to a currency backed by something of real value, is laughed at by their politicians as if it were "controversial". But in Sudan, it may be that a stable currency backed by items of real value (cows) may be the least controversial policy the UTS could take.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
The President of the UTS shall be elected, with a vice president, to a four year term.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Each Tribal Council shall select as many "Electors" as the Tribe has UTS Senators and Representatives. No UTS elected official or employee or officer may be an Elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Electors shall meet in their respective Tribes, and vote for two candidates, of whom at least one must be from another Tribe. They shall make a list of everyone they voted for, how many votes each candidate got, and they shall seal the list so that its results will not be released to the public until it is sent to Congress, which will, in the presence of the Senate and House, open all the certificates and count the votes. If one candidate has a majority (over 50%) of the votes, he shall be President. If two candidates have a majority, and an equal number of votes, the House shall select which shall be President. If no candidate has a majority, the House shall select the President from the five candidates with the most votes. When the House votes in this manner, each Tribe's representatives will cast only one vote. At least one representative from 2/3 of the tribes must be present for the vote, and the winner must receive over half the votes of the total number of Tribes. After the President is chosen, the next highest vote getter will be Vice President. If there are two with equal votes, then the Senate will chose the Vice President.
Explanation: The above language in italics was not actually all in the original Constitution, but is modified according to how it was changed by the 12'th Amendment. in America today, most Americans are confused about how their President is elected. Most think he is elected by "popular vote", that is, by the votes cast by every voter. In the 2000 election we were reminded that it is the Electoral College which casts the votes, yet most Americans remain confused, since the electors of the Electoral College, for each state, vote the way the popular votes are cast. The Constitution doesnt specify any of these things, and it doesnt call the electors the "electoral college"; that is just a phrase made up later. The Constitution lets each state (Tribe) decide for itself who it will select. So in America, today, each state has decided that whoever gets the most popular votes in that state, that candidates party will select the electors, which means all the electors for that state will vote for that candidate even if that candidate got only 50.01% of the vote. This agreement is called "winner take all". It wasnt always this way. Only a few decades ago, some states still selected its electors proportionately, so that if the winner had 51% of the vote and the state had 20 electors, 11 electors would vote for the candidate and 9 for his opponent. But the Constitution doesnt require states (Tribes) to pay any attention to the popular vote. That may be wise in most cases, but the point is that the Constitution wants to make sure the elected state governments (Tribal councils) have the ultimate say in who is President of the US (UTS). The original Constitution thus had US (UTS) Senators chosen by state legislatures (Tribal Councils), the President chosen by Electors chosen by state legislatures (Tribal councils), and only Congress was elected directly by popular vote. One benefit of this system was that voters paid much more attention to who they selected for their state legislatures (Tribal councils). Today most people barely know what "State Representative" means. Today, with people directly selecting U.S. Senators, and virtually electing their President directly, and with the Federal Government so far exceeding its Constitutional authority as to become a dictator to states, there is much less reason for people to be concerned who serves in their State Legislature. But local government is a much better guard of liberty, because it is much easier for a few prophets to expose a corrupt leader of a million people, and for a million people to remove the corrupt leader, than it is for a few prophets to expose a corrupt leader over 20 million people.
Notice that if no candidate has a majority, Congress would select the President. In 2000 and 1992, no candidate had a majority of the POPULAR vote. When there are only two candidates, then one of them will necessarily have the majority. But if there are three, it is possible for one to have, for example, 45%, another 40%, and the third 15%, so that none have a majority. But while neither President Bush nor President Clinton had a majority of the POPULAR vote, they both had a majority of the "electoral college", because no third party candidate won an entire state, so that there were only two candidates before the "electoral college".
Notice that the number of electors for each Tribe is equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives. So why doesn't the Constitution just authorize Congress to select the President? Why is it better to have it done by unelected, unpaid ordinary citizens? If the Tribe has already gone to great trouble to select two Senators to represent its interests, why aren't those two good enough to help select the President?
The answer is that after a Senator has been in office for awhile, and enjoys the money and honor which people give him because of his position, he may choose a President who will help him move government in his direction; while a person who is unelected, and not on any federal payroll, will have nothing personally to gain from one candidate over another.
Why are electors better qualified than all the votes of all the people? There is much false information about candidates that confuses many people. A few people, selected by their Tribal Council, are more likely to really understand the candidates and their issues. Of course today, since states have adopted the "Winner Take All" policy, wisdom is not a factor. But when America's Founders created this system, this was one of their reasons.
Why did the Constitution make the number of each Tribe's electors equal to the number of their Senators and Representatives? In the 2000 election Al Gore carried about half a dozen populous states, yet according to early reports, he won the popular votes! George Bush carried over 40 of the 50 states, yet according to early reports, won the popular vote! (Later reports indicate Bush won the popular vote, but there are enough questions about which votes should have been counted that doubt remains.) In other words, if only the popular vote were considered, the Tribes with great populations would dictate to the smaller Tribes. That wouldn't be fair. On the other hand, if each Tribe had an equal voice, that wouldn't be fair to the large states, which would have no more voice than the small ones. So each Tribe is given a voice equal to its representation in Congress, which was proportioned for the same reasons.
What incredible detail is given to balancing the voice of populous tribes and small tribes! The House chooses, whose members are selected by the people; but each state's representatives cast only one vote, so that small states have the same equal voice as they do in the Senate! The House chooses the President, but in the remote event there are two runner-ups with equal votes, the Senate chooses; which is natural, since the Vice President serves as President of the Senate.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United Tribes.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United Tribes, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
If the President dies, resigns, or cannot serve for any reason, the Vice President shall take over until the President can resume his duties or a replacement is elected. If the Vice President becomes unable to serve, Congress may designate a replacement until he can resume his duties or a replacement is elected. Congress may enact laws providing for such situations.
Explanation: in the U.S., Congress has determined that when both the President and Vice President step down, the Speaker of the House shall act as President. This actually happened in about 1974. President Richard Nixon, facing impeachment, resigned, so that Vice President Spiro Agnew became President. But within a few more months, the same scandal forced Agnew to resign too, so House Speaker Gerald Ford became president. One of his first acts was to Pardon Nixon, even before he had been convicted, thus ending the investigations which were consuming the national attention. Ford's pardon was a big reason he lost the election about two years later.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
The President's salary shall not be increased or decreased during his time in office. Besides his salary, he shall receive no other gifts from the UTS, or from any Tribe.
Explanation: the American president's salary includes an incredible expense account, including the most expensive personal transportation in the world. The point of this rule is that if Congress votes a salary increase, it can't take effect until after the next election. Thus the President has less incentive to increase presidential pay for his personal benefit.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army, the Air Force, and the citizen militia of each of the Tribes, but only when either of these are called by Congress into actual fighting for the UTS. The President may require the heads of executive departments to submit written reports on any subject. The President shall have power to pardon people convicted of federal crimes, although he may not pardon someone who is impeached by Congress.
Explanation: There are three major, separate subjects in this paragraph. The first is the one that may merit explanation. We learn that in the original Constitution, the President does not act as Commander in Chief except in time of war. In time of peace, there is no army or air force consisting of full time soldiers, and the citizen militia of each tribe is commanded exclusively by each respective tribe. Of course, the preparation and discipline of the citizen militias is established by law from Congress, so the militias are just as prepared for a sudden, major war, as if there were regular, full time troops. In fact, better, if you think about it: In America, for example, we have less than a million man army! That is not enough for a major confrontation! I wonder if the same military resources might be invested in keeping 20 million part time troops ready? In which case we would be far readier for a sudden massive invasion. I don't know. I'm no military expert. And of course America already balances its full time troop needs with its part time troop needs. Military secrets are harder to keep the more you have in your army, but what good are secrets if you don't have enough men to use them? America's Founders balanced these concerns by letting States command their own troops as long as they weren't needed by the whole nation.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President may make treaties with other nations, which will not take force until they are ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Ambassadors, Supreme Court Judges, Federal Department Heads, and any additional offices which Congress by law requires to be selected in the same manner, will be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. Congress may by Law, as it thinks proper, delegate appointment of lesser officers in the President alone, in courts of law, or in the heads of Departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
When a vacancy requiring Senate confirmation occurs while the Senate is in recess, the President may temporarily fill the position with an appointment that expires at the end of the next session of the Senate.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United Tribes.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The President, Vice President, and any other high officer paid out of the federal treasury, shall be removed from office after being impeached (charged, or indicted) by Congress and convicted by the Senate of anything from treason to bribery; anything from a felony to a simple misdemeanor. Impeachment is appropriate for political offenses such as personal misconduct, gross neglect, usurpation of authority (acting without authority), or habitual disregard of the public interests.
Explanation: When the Constitution was written, bribery was considered immoral but there were no criminal penalties for it; no laws against it. In other words, the Constitution does not limit impeachment to only two specific crimes, treason and bribery, but allows impeachments for the wide range of wrongs between those two extremes. "High" crimes didn't refer to the greatness of the crime, but to the high position of the offender, according to Blackstone. Debate during the Constitutional Convention clarified that the intent of this word was to limit impeachment only to federal officials of high rank.
The examples added in the final proposed sentence are taken from Justice Story's 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution" which explain what the authors of the Constitution meant by it. Story observed that in the impeachment trials to that date, not one was over an action defined by any law as a crime.
(Source: "What rises to the level of an impeachable offense?" by Historian David Barton, wallbuilders.com)
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The enforcement of laws shall not be by a President, or by a General, or by Congress, but by a Supreme Court, and whatever lower courts (and court officers) Congress creates. Their judges shall hold office only as long as they remain ethical, moral, and just. Their salary shall not be decreased while they remain in office.
Explanation: Today in America, the Constitutional requirement of "good behavior", in judges, has been trivialized to the extent that if they don't stagger drunk into the court room, and don't get caught in some public lurid scandal, that's good enough behavior, regardless of whatever lurid indecency, or corrupt murders, they protected by their judgments. Originally, righteous judgment was expected of judges. Judges were expected to be rational. The last official dumbing down of judicial ethics occurred in about 1967, when the American Bar Association reduced its Canon of Judicial Ethics from 21 down to 7. One of the casualties was #18, which required that judges listen to the litigants, and read their briefs, and write opinions that address the issues raised, so litigants can at least feel their points were considered.
The Canon actually said: "...a judge should indicate the reasons for his action in an opinion showing that he has not disregarded or overlooked serious arguments of counsel. He thus shows his full understanding of the case, avoids the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promotes confidence in his intellectual integrity and may contribute useful precedent to the growth of the law..." In other words, the failure to do this, which is a very common failure in today's courts, was considered unethical only a generation ago. How much more, in ethical judgments, was demanded in a century at the end of which the Supreme Court in its 1892 Trinity case, established that America is officially a Christian nation?
When Bill Clinton splashed his perversion all over America, his defenders said what he does outside the office makes no difference; it's how he does "his job" that matters. Yet of judges, we say today that how he does "his job" is for his sainted perspective alone to judge; it's only what he does outside the office that matters! Both perspectives are equally absurd. Behavior matters, on and off the job. If a judge does not judge righteously, Congress needs the courage to impeach him. The Constitution already gives Congress the authority. Let Sudan's Constitution likewise clearly give Congress this authority. Unfortunately a Constitution cannot legislate courage.
Many will object that if Congress is allowed to impeach for rulings it considers corrupt, what will restrain Congress from penalizing judges for rulings which are not corrupt at all, but merely politically incorrect? The answer: the people, who re-elect Congress every two years. If Congress thinks a judge is unethical to deserve impeachment, and the voters don't turn the Congressmen out at the next election, then the judge probably was that unethical.
Keep in mind that the judges of state courts are elected. A century ago all of them were elected every 4 years, and you didn't have to be a lawyer to run. Now most states' governors appoint judges, but judges face a vote every 4 years whether they should be retained. This bit of public accountability isn't responsible for judicial problems today. Only in Federal courts do judges face no election, but only the possibility of impeachment. America's Founders never imagined that possibility would ever grow so remote! Nor did they imagine Congress would extend federal laws until they duplicate almost every state law! The original federal judges could not have faced voters, because the only jurisdiction they had was across state lines! Now federal judges face neither voters, nor impeachment: they are left absolutely unaccountable! No man may be safely trusted with so unlimited power!
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Federal court jurisdiction shall extend to all violations of this Constitution, the laws of the UTS, or treaties which the Senate has ratified. It shall hear not only cases where the letter of a law has been violated, but also where a wrong has been done which violates the spirit of a law, and where the party which was wronged seeks an injunction to prevent the wrong from being repeated. (A court considering an injunction is called a "court of equity"). It shall hear cases involving ambassadors, department heads, actions outside Sudan's borders -- controversies in which the UTS is either the plaintiff or the defendant, controversies between Tribes, or between the citizens of different Tribes, or between a Tribe or its citizens and foreign countries or citizens.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
In all cases involving ambassadors, department heads, or Tribes, the Supreme Court will be the first and only Court that will hear the case. In all other cases, the Supreme Court will only be authorized to review a case which has previously been tried in a lower court. When the Supreme Court reviews a case, it may review both the law (whether the law ought to be applied in this situation) and the facts (what really happened). Congress may make regulations governing the Supreme Court's interpretation or philosophy of law, its rules of evidence, and may specify exceptions to the Court's jurisdiction.
Explanation: America might still have slaves today had not Congress, in 1862, ignored the Supreme Court's Dredd Scott decision which said slaves were not "persons", and declared freedom for slaves! Abraham Lincoln likewise ignored the Court the next year, giving his "Emancipation Proclamation". And after the Civil War, Congress cited this very clause in its law prohibiting the Supreme Court from reviewing its laws concerning "Reconstruction" (the laws protecting the freed slaves as they tried to get property, jobs, and political representation).
Yet when the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned Congress "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", (Boerne v. Flores), it had the arrogance to declare, "Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law [our rulings] (If Congress ever dares again to) act against the background of a judicial interpretation of the Constitution already issued, it must be understood that in later cases and controversies the Court will treat its [own] precedents with the respect due them and contrary expectations must be disappointed." Wow! What arrogance! What brazen violation of the Constitution! To honor its own past rulings more than the Constitution!
This section, Article III, Section 2, gives Congress authority over the Supreme Court, to "establish the scope of the Judiciarys jurisdiction and the types of cases which might come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot even serve without the approval of Congress and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied", in the words of Historian David Barton.
But James Madison, known as "The Father of the Constitution", said "the meaning of the Constitution may as well be determined by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority". Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin added, "A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the judges than to the Legislature." And Justice Joseph Story, known as the Father of American Jurisprudence, said "in measures exclusively of a political, Legislative, or Executive character, it is plain that as the supreme authority as to these questions belongs to the Legislative and Executive departments, they cannot be re-examined elsewhere."
James Madison not only blasted any thought of the Supreme Court overturning a law; Madison blasted any thought of the Supreme Court failing to vigorously enforce any law: "Refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper." Samuel Adams explained what such an out-of-control court does to liberty: "If the people are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation [support], they are SLAVES to those who make such laws and enforce them."
[Source: "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", by historian David Barton, www.wallbuilders.com]
Allen Keyes doesnt share Bartons view; he says that since the power of Congress to regulate the jurisdiction of courts follows a statement about cases on appeal, that therefore, Congress has no power to regulate jurisdiction where the Court has "original jurisdiction".
In January of 2000 I had the opportunity to ask Alan Keyes what he thought about Bartons points. He answered me: "Ive heard the argument, but I dont think its that simple. Because the Article has to do with the ability of Congress to determine the jurisdiction of cases the Court can hear on appeal. In a question of rights like this, where an individual is going to say that a fundamental violation of the Constitution has taken place, the Court would be able to reach out and take the case like that directly. It wouldnt have to take it on appeal. The Supreme Court actually does have jurisdiction over cases arising from the Constitution. Ive heard the argument, but Im not sure. In the case of the lower federal Courts, there is no doubt that Congress can limit jurisdiction. But in the case of the Supreme Court itself, it is a co-equal branch of government. The judges would be the masters of interpreting, whether or not such a case in fact arose from the Constitution itself. So what youd get in that case would be kind of a stalemate."
Obviously Keyes is more generous with the superior Constitutional "mastery" of judges than were those who wrote the Constitution. But why does he assume the Supreme Court automatically has "jurisdiction over cases arising from the Constitution" at all, much less that the Court receives jurisdiction, by the presence of any Constitutional issue, to "reach out" and take "original jurisdiction" over ANY case?! That thinking would practically eliminate lower courts altogether, since MOST trials have in them, at some point, reference to a Constitutional issue!
Sudan has suffered enough slavery; it does not need a Judiciary which will enslave it again. It does not need unbridled kings who will protect the murderers of unborn babies, tear out the Ten Commandments from public places, pull Bibles from Schools, and outlaw voluntary prayer in public! Sudanese need to understand the original place of the Judiciary, when it was created, and compare it with what it has become, to understand the importance of creating their own judiciary according to what it was, and not with what it has been allowed to become. Sudanese must understand the importance of limits to these unelected men, so that they may say without fear, with America's Founders,
"The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,,,.the judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power. ,,,the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter." Alexander Hamilton, "The Federalist" #78.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
All federal crimes, (violations of federal laws), tried in federal court, shall be tried by jury, in the Tribe where the alleged crimes were committed. If they were committed outside the UTS, they will be held where Congress has set by law. (Tribes may prosecute violations of their own laws by whatever procedures they think proper.)
Explanation: keep in mind that this applies only to federal violations. Originally, the Constitution and its first ten Amendments (called "The Bill of Rights") had no force against state officials but only against federal officials. The states already had most of the same provisions in their state constitutions; in fact that is why they were copied into the federal Constitution. And later states copied virtually the same protections into their state constitutions. But the point is states, and in Sudan, the Tribes, should retain the ultimate freedom to organize their society by their own choice, not by the choice of a neighboring Tribe. Federal recognition of citizen rights is necessary, and should apply, only in matters which involve multiple Tribes.
Section 3. Treason against the UTS, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering ["associating with, by conformity of faith, principle, or opinion"] to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Congress shall set the penalty for treason, when a fair trial has produced a conviction, but the penalty shall be limited to the guilty person, and may include forfeiture of property while he is living, but may not affect the property rights of his heirs after his death.
Explanation: Webster's original dictionary defines corruption: "8. In law, taint; impurity of blood, in consequence of an act of attainder of treason or felony, by which a person is disabled to inherit lands from an ancestor, nor can retain those in his possession, nor transmit them by descent to his heirs."
But if the Constitution previously outlaws a Bill of Attainder, which means Congress punishing a man for treason (the punishment was "death or outlawry") without first giving him a fair trial, why does this paragraph define the limits of an Attainder? Under "attainder", Webster's original explains that this phrase, "attainder of treason", refers to a guilty verdict of treason after a fair trial. The language is too similar for me to tell the difference, but I'm glad Webster knew. He wrote: "2. By the common law, an immediate and inseparable effect of a judgment of death or outlawry, for treason or felony; the consequence of which to the person attainted are forfeiture of lands, tenements, and hereditaments; corruption of blood, by which he can no longer inherit, or transmit an inheritance; and loss of reputation, and of civil rights generally. A statute of parliament attainting a criminal, is called an act or bill of attainder. By a statute of 3-4 Wm. IV., the consequences of attainder are limited to the life of the person attainted. Note: By the constitution of the United States, no bill of attainder shall be passed; and no attainder of treason (in consequence of a judicial sentence) shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted."
In America today, these provisions seem obscure, unlikely to affect anybody we know. But in Sudan today, as it emerges from a conglomeration of disunited tribes half protected and half milked dry by competing warlords, to a Constitutional Republic of civilian-governed Tribes, vengeance for past wrongs will make the treatment of treason very important. So it was as the Constitution was drafted, after a war in which many Americans sided with the British. So it was again after the Civil War; the 14th Amendment (section 3) was even written to disqualify officers and politicians of the South (the Confederacy) from being elected to Congress!
(Section. 3, 14th Amendment: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.)
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each Tribe to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other Tribe. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Explanation: In other words, a man convicted of murder in one Tribe would be be acknowledged as a murderer by another state; you would not have one Tribe honoring a man as a hero which another Tribe has convicted of murder. That would be the sort of disrespect that provokes war between Tribes. A couple of years ago, Hawaii very nearly allowed sodomites to "marry". Had they done it, this paragraph would have forced all other states to accept the "marriages" entered into the "public records" of Hawaii! Christians and conservatives put great pressure on Hawaii not to do that abomination; a Constitutional Amendment was even proposed to outlaw sodomite marriages nationwide. Finally Hawaii backed down, but just by a few votes. Since then New Hampshire has recently enacted a "Civil Unions" law which gives Sodomite couples the same rights as legitimately married couples. Since no other state has laws granting benefits for "civil unions", this paragraph does not affect other states.
This may have been the first time in U.S. History when any state contemplated so abominable a law, making Section 1 a matter of concern to other states! Ordinarily it is obvious that Tribes cannot enjoy economic or political cooperation if they must argue even about another Tribe's record of who is married, or who is a criminal, or whether its legislature has a right to pass its own laws.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
The citizens of each Tribe, when traveling to other tribes, shall have all the freedoms, rights of Citizenship, civil rights, and Constitutional rights, as the citizens of the other tribes.
A person charged in any Tribe with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another Tribe, shall on demand of the executive authority of the Tribe from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the Tribe having jurisdiction of the crime.
Explanation: even if the fugitive might be less likely to be found guilty under the laws of the Tribe in which he seeks refuge, each Tribe agrees that the citizens of other Tribes ought to be subject to the laws of their Tribe.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
No person who, by the laws of his Tribe, is obligated to serve in its militia, or who owes debts, who escapes to another Tribe with more lenient laws, shall, because of the more lenient laws, be relieved of his obligations; but shall be returned upon the legitimate request of the party to whom the service or debt is owed.
Section 3. New Tribes may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new Tribes shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other Tribe; nor any Tribe be formed by the junction of two or more Tribes, or parts of Tribes, without the consent of the legislatures of the Tribes concerned as well as of the Congress.
Explanation: If it weren't for this paragraph, any tribe, large or small, would be motivated to divide into several more tribes in order to get more Senators.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Congress shall have authority to buy, sell, and regulate UTS property. Nothing in this Constitution shall be interpreted in a way that restricts the property rights of the UTS or of any Tribe.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
The UTS shall guarantee to every Tribe in this union a form of government in which laws are determined, not by popular referendum, ("Democracy"), but by legitimately elected representatives of the people who discern and apply the Laws of Human Nature created by God ("Republic"). The UTS shall protect the Tribes from invasion. The UTS shall even protect a Tribe from violence within its own borders, upon the request of its Tribal Council, or of its Chief when the Council cannot be convened.
Explanation of the first sentence, about a "Republic": "liberal" Americans will rupture at this kind of talk, but the fact is America is not, technically, a "democracy", however much Democrats today would like to think so. It is a "Republic", even though many Republicans today don't understand the difference. But America's founders did, and the distinction was very important to them. They described a "democracy" as mob rule; where the majority oppressed the minority. The Declaration of Independence laid the foundation of legitimacy for the Constitution; it spoke of the Creator being the source of our rights, not any fickle human majority that protects snails one year and murders babies the next. They believed that trusted, wise leaders could better discern just laws than mobs, even mobs casting votes rather than rocks. They believed trusted, wise leaders could make themselves better informed on the facts than average people who are limited by time or apathy from study.
The difference between Democracy and Republic is huge on two levels: both structurally, and in philosophy.
Structurally, a Democracy seeks every practical opportunity to allow ordinary voters to decide every issue they care to. A Republic entrusts the voters with the selection of wise, faithful men, and then relies on those elected representatives to study issues and reach a righteous decision.
Philosophically, a Democracy regards the Majority as the source of maximum wisdom on matters of law. A Republic regards God as the source of all wisdom, thus considering even the will of the majority of less legal authority than the will of God, when the two seem to conflict. They conceive a Majority voluntarily subject to laws greater than themselves. No law can be greater than the laws of a majority of the human beings of a land, logically speaking, unless it is the Law of God.
The invention of a Republic, a government in which The People submit to The Rule of a Law Higher than their own will, came from an ancient Sudanese family. It is also God's system. God gave the model of Representative Government to the father of an Ethiopian woman, (Sudan is part of the Ethiopian racial family), a Midianite priest. Midian [Heb: "strife"] was a son of Abraham by his second wife, Kethura. Therefore, assuming he was a Midianite by geneology rather than region, he was probably white. But for his daughter to be Ethiopian, at least his wife must have been Ethiopian. History indicates there was an Ethiopian settlement in Midian.
The Father of Representative Government was named Jethro [Heb: "abundance"], also named Raguel, or Reuel [Heb: "friend of God"]. God gave the model for Representative Government to Jethro, who gave it to Moses, who wrote it in the Bible, which gave it to the World.
Jethro was the father of Moses' wife, Zipporah [Heb: "bird"], who was an Ethiopian according to Numbers 12:1-2 (assuming Moses had only one wife; there is no indication in the Bible he had another).
Following Jethro's advice, Moses took nominations, from the people, of trusted, righteous men, and recognized them as Leaders who could share with him the administration of justice. Deuteronomy 1:13-17, Exodus 18. King David incorporated the same system into his own government, 1 Chronicles 27:1.
That same Representative government was a fixture of not only American legal history but of ancient English history. In Jethro's system, every 10 families would select a leader, and every 50 families, and every 100 families, and every 1,000 families. As late as the 12th century, England still had the groups of 100 and 10. The evidence of this is found in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, under its definition of "hundreds":
"It's most remarkable feature was the corporate responsibility of the whole for the crimes or defaults of the individual members." Black's says the plan is said to be introduced by Alfred (died 899), "but the idea, as well of the collective liability as of the division, was probably known to the ancient German peoples, as we find the same thing established in the Frankish Kingdom under Clothaire, [497-561] and in Denmark. See 1 Bl. Comm. 115; 4 Bl. Comm. 411."
How was this system, too like Jethro's system for coincidence, transmitted through German and English culture? I don't know. Some say it proves the English are the descendents of some of the lost tribes of Israel; but pre-Christian monarchies of several English and European and Sandinavian countries all trace their lineage all the way back to Japeth, (the son of Noah) not Shem (the other son of Noah, who was the ancestor of Abraham). However it came about, the fact is this system of representative government, as opposed to a "democratic" mob, is a cornerstone of English law.
Exodus doesn't actually say there was a single judge to settle each dispute. Exodus 21:22 says "judges" are to determine the damages in a lawsuit. This suggests the English system where all ten families, or all hundred families, etc, judged each matter by consensus. Or perhaps there were more than one judge for each grouping. Or perhaps the "rulers" had a role like moderators, like judges in early America which moderated juries, leaving the juries to judge both the law and the facts of each case. Or perhaps it suggests today's system of juries, where impartial average people are chosen to study the facts and issues of a case. We can only guess at the numbers of judges.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several Tribes, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several Tribes, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
...provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
But no Amendment may nullify Article 1, Section 9, giving Tribes 20 years of unregulated immigration; nor may any Amendment deprive any Tribe of its two senators, without that tribe's consent.
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Explanation: This paragraph is unnecessary for Sudan. In the United States, the States were "Confederated" under "Articles of Confederation" before they adopted the Constitution and called themselves "United". (This helps understand why the South, during the Civil War, called themselves, once again, a "Confederacy". By the word, they meant a more loosely allied, less united, group of individual sovereign states.) In the U.S., the Confederacy had big war debts, which the U.S. under the Constitution was still obligated to repay. (For example, much of the debt was to France; a decision not to repay could provoke war.) So this paragraph just reassured nervous creditors, who otherwise would have done all they could to stop the Constitution from being adopted. But in Sudan today, there is no confederacy of Tribes with debts which a future civilian Sudanese government should have to pay.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United Tribes which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United Tribes, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any Tribe to the contrary notwithstanding.
Explanation: Today this paragraph has turned the Federal Government into a tyranny over the states. Congress has written laws duplicating almost every state law, forcing state lawmakers to rewrite their laws to comply! But if Sudanese will be vigilant that their new government does not turn the "commerce" clause and the "general welfare" clause into jurisdiction over internal Tribal concerns, then it will not be frightening to allow the Federal laws to be "the supreme law of the land", because they won't affect the everyday life within Tribes; federal laws will only apply to those situations that involve interaction between tribes. As long as federal law is limited in this way, then it only makes sense for federal laws, governing how two Tribes should interact on some issue, to have greater authority than the laws of just one of two Tribes.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several Tribal Councils, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United Tribes and of the several Tribes, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United Tribes.
Explanation: when the U.S. Constitution was written, some states still had state-protected and supported churches. So it was in everyone's interest that all federal officials be deeply Christian. But because the states supported different denominations, no statement of faith could be devised which would satisfy every State. Likewise in Sudan, various tribes may favor differing understandings of Christianity. It is enough that each Tribe has complete authority to use religious critieria for the representatives it sends. Once again, keep in mind the Constitution was never meant to limit the right of states to continue supporting their favorite religions.
The ratification of the conventions of nine Tribes, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Explanation: the 13 States in 1789 didn't want to just start their new Constitution with only 2 or 3 states on board, because they already had a Confederation of all the states which would be better to keep than trade for a superior coalition of but 2 or 3 states. So they waited until they had 2/3 of the states on board. How many Tribes are there in Sudan? If Sudan adopted so strict a standard, would 100 tribes have to join before they could begin? But Sudan today has no Confederation to give up. So Sudanese should consider how many would have to join to make it practical. Perhaps two or three would be enough. Sudanese should also consider the form of ratification which would make it official. Should there be a public referendum? Tribal Councils decide, directly, whether to join? Should they appoint a "convention" of people they trust to study the issues and report back to them with their recommendation? The latter would be the American model.
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman
New York: Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton
Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris
Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom
Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll
Virginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.
North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson
South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin
1. 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.
1. Congress shall make no law forcing citizens to give to, or attend, or agree with, or pay taxes to, any church. Nor shall Congress make any law that limits the free expression of religious ideas, or limits the free exercise of nonviolent religion (or in other words, that limits religious practice, or obedience to Christian principles, or to non-Christian, but nonviolent, religious principles). However, any Tribe may make whatever laws about religion it thinks proper. Congress shall not limit freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of people to assemble peacefully, and to complain to the government.
Explanation: The ACLU today behaves as if "establishment of religion" meant allowing Christians any freedom of speech to express their religion in public. But the original meaning of "establishment of religion" was the state-supported churches that existed to that day, where state laws forced people to attend a certain denomination, and to tithe to it, and to not fall asleep during it, while other denominations were persecuted. I added nonviolence as a condition of government non-interference in religious practices, because Moslems kill Christians in obedience to their faith. Americans today think the First Amendment prevents their state from establishing religion, but as you can see, the First Amendment limits only Congress; it didn't make states stop supporting their favored denominations. But rather, it was the choice of states to adopt the same principles in their state constitutions.
2. 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.
2. Because the security of a free country is threatened by a permanent army of full time soldiers whose sole income comes from their superiors, the security of free people must necessarily depend upon a well prepared Militia of part time soldiers with stronger loyalties to their families, neighbors, and customers than to any General who tries to enslave them. Therefore the right of all law-abiding citizens, to keep and to freely carry weapons, as sophisticated as they can afford, shall not be limited.
Explanation: Sorry, liberals, but this is the original meaning of this Amendment. Makes sense, too.
3. 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.
3. No federal soldier shall "commandeer" a house, or any other property, either in time of peace or in time of war, without the consent of the Owner, except in a manner authorized by law.
4. 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.
4. Federal officers shall not search any citizen's clothes, houses, records, or property, without first getting a Search Warrant from a judge which explains the Probable Cause that a crime has been committed, and that limits the search to a particular place, and that limits the persons or things to be seized to particular persons or things. The officers requesting the Warrant, if it be proved they knew they had no probable cause, may be convicted of perjury.
5. 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.
5. Before a citizen may be tried for any federal crime, he must be indicted by a Grand Jury (a jury which listens to the case against a citizen and decides whether there is Probable Cause to file charges against him) except in the military during a war or other public danger. Nor shall any person face trial twice for the same offense, not even for different charges. Nor shall private property be taken for public use, unless the government pays its fair market value.
6. 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.
6. When any citizen is prosecuted for a crime, he shall have the right to as speedy a trial as he desires, by an impartial jury from the Tribe and community where the crime was committed. He has a right to be immediately told what he is alleged to have done, and by what law that action is alleged to be a crime. He has a right to cross examine the witnesses against him, to be able to force witnesses in his favor to testify, and to have the help either of a licensed attorney, or any unlicensed advocate or friend, in presenting his defense.
Explanation: Sorry, lawyers, but regarding the final phrases, that's really the Original Intent of the Sixth Amendment. I will try to get my brief, with all the case law you want, on the web soon, showing that history. Meanwhile, the "speedy trial" phrase has been the easiest to pervert. In Iowa you can wait 6 months for a simple misdemeanor trial! In California, I hear it's a couple of years! I'm not certain how practical "as speedy a trial as he desires" is, but let's try to think of something that keeps "speedy" from meaning a generation or two. "The nature and cause of the accusation" means the facts and law of the alleged crime; I've just tried to make the meaning more clear to non lawyers. The part that will anger lawyers is the suggestion that non-lawyers should be allowed to help a defendant present his case. Current practice in the U.S. is to either let the defendant forfeit all his worldly possessions to hire an incredibly expensive licensed attorney, or he must have no help at all, but must defend himself. But when the 6th amendment was written, there were five basic categories of "counsel": (1) men who had attended 7 years of law school in England, like today's attorneys; (2) men who just hung around courtrooms until they worked up the self confidence to hang out their shingle; (3) men who attended an American law school, in which you typically found a single law book in the library, but many books on theology, and wherein an entrance exam required greater fluency in New Testament Greek than seminary graduates today; (4) apprentices who hung around lawyers and served as human copy machines, in return for which they might read in the attorney's library; and (5) "Private Attorneys", meaning someone who never acted as a lawyer before or since but is willing to help a friend this one time. The fact is our present monopoly on helping people in court is a terrible burden for the wealthiest people on the planet! It would be an insufferable burden in Sudan! It would be barbaric, inhumane, and unconstitutional.
7. 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.
7. In lawsuits, (to correct wrongs that are not violations of laws), conducted by Tribal rules, where the value in dispute exceeds $100, the accused shall have a right to a trial by jury. No fact tried by a jury shall later be questioned in any federal court, other than by the same Tribal rules.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9. The list of rights in the Constitution are not a complete list of all the rights the people have, and the Constitution shall never be so interpreted.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
10. Any power not specifically given by the Constitution to the UTS, or specifically taken from the Tribes by the Constitution, remains with the Tribes or to the people.
11. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one on the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
11. Federal courts have no jurisdiction over lawsuits in which the Plaintiffs are citizens of another Tribe or another country.
13. 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.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
15, 19, 24, 26 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, inability to pay a voting fee, or age provided the citizen is at least 18 years old.
19. No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
(Undesirable Amendments: Amendment 16 creates the income tax, authorizing the Federal Government to track endless details about every citizen. Amendment 17 lets Senators be chosen directly by the people rather than by Tribal Councils. The 18th Amendment outlaws alcoholic drinks, and the 21st Amendment repeals the 18th Amendment. Bad News amendments. The 20th Amendment sets precise times for terms of office to begin; Sudan will not want to lock itself into so specific a schedule, in its Constitution, without years of experience that point to those times which are most beneficial. The 22nd Amendment limits the President's term to 8 years in office, or two 4-year terms. The 23rd Amendment lets people in the District of Columbia have electors that help choose the President, even though they do not have their own Congressmen or Senators. That is sort of like letting the Palace Guard elect the King. The 25th Amendment modifies, and makes more detailed, the procedure when the President is incapacitated
Petition: I, ___________________________________________________________________, have read the Proposed Constitution of the United Tribes of Sudan, and will encourage my family and friends to work towards the day when the Free People of Sudan may be protected by a Constitution like it.
Got feedback? Send it, along with
name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where
your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post
your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If
you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)