A BRIEF HISTORY OF PIRACY

Being a very brief account of pirates, corsairs, privateers, Vikings and other sea-wolves their fame, occupation, and close relation to the rise and fall of empires from antiquity to post-modern times.

PART ONE: PIRACY IN ANTIQUITY

Scholars assure us that the condition of post-modernity is that of the old becoming suddenly new, life lived as a fever dream where the repressed returns with such regularity that it seems never to have been repressed at all, and a globalization of the imagery of fear. If so, then piracy is the poster-child of post-modern crime.

Plunder at sea is perhaps as old as man’s discovery that things float, with the corresponding realization that valuable things float, and that some other chap’s floating valuables might be had for the taking. Piracy on the other hand, awaited a framework of law that condemned the taking of others’ waterborne wealth. In that absence of law, sea-raiding appears as no more than the routine intercourse between the strong and the weak.

Such were the ways of Homer’s heroes who toppled Troy and bore off its women to slavery in Greece. Bronze Age Vikings were not merely legend. The raiders known as the Sea Peoples smashed the Hittite Empire, brought fire and sword to the Levantine coast, and were finally halted in a massive naval battle on the coast of Egypt in 1180 BC. The Sea Peoples left their tribal names such as Sherden, Seklesh, and Peleset in the familiar names of Sardinia, Sicily, and the Philistines.

When Mediterranean civilization recovered from the collapse of the Bronze Age empires, the principal maritime powers were the Greeks and the Phoenicians. These two cultures existed in a perpetual war at sea. Both Greek and Phoenician city-states sought to expand by plating colonies on any stretch of coastline that could be taken from poorly-armed barbarians. Neither Greek nor Punic mariners were about to give an inch of contested sea-space to the other.

Other groups such as the Tyrhennian raiders of Etruria and the barbaric Illyrian warriors contributed to the chaos. But to the Greeks, “Punic” was a synonym for pirate. A lack of Punic records has no doubt been beneficial to Greek reputations.

One Illyrian tribe, the Liburnians, invented a type of vessel that became the basic pirate craft of the ancient world. A liburnian had fifty oars arranged in one bank and a ram on the prow. It was fast, maneuverable, capable of shallow water operations, yet with enough space to pack a horde of blood-mad Illyrian vikings. With due allowance for advances in weapons and sailing technology, these were the basic parameters of a pirate vessel throughout the ages.

As in many other aspects of Western culture the Greeks were the leaders. They originated the concept of privateering. Surprisingly, privateering predates piracy. It has its roots in the concept of reprisal. Greek cities offered recourse to law only to their own citizens. If for example a Corinthian robbed an Argive, the Argive had no standing in a Corinthian court. Therefore Argive law allowed the injured party to recover his damages from the next Corinthian he met. Thus the Argive had a legal (in Argive eyes), private, and limited sort of war on Corinth. Gradually Greek cities limited this legalized brigandage by offering reciprocity (asylia in Greek, hence asylum) under the law.

While Greeks faced criminal sea-robbers and barbarian raiders from early times, the concept of a pirate emerged in the era of Alexander the Great around 300 BC. The word “peirates”-pirate-comes from the Greek verb meaning “to attempt” as in “to make a violent attempt.” The early pirates were not so much outlaws as combined-arms military contractors, or mercenaries. The transformation of words meaning “mercenary” to “robber” is a common lexical progress. Thus “brigand” derives from a term for a Medieval armored soldier-of-fortune, while the Spanish word “ladrone” comes from Latin “latro”, which originally meant a hired soldier. All of which indicates what ancient mercenaries did when they weren’t employed on authorized pillage and slaughter.

The pirates quickly became an independent power in the Mediterranean. They established independent bases in Cilicia on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor. The Cilician pirates reached their peak of power in the later Roman Republic. They specialized in kidnapping Roman citizens for ransom, most famously a young Julius Caesar. When they took Caesar he asked what his ransom was to be. The pirates replied ten talents of gold. Caesar sneered at that. Ten was for riff-raff, Caesar was worth sixteen!

The Cilicians managed to become pop-culture icons of the ancient world. The adventure stories and dramas of the Hellenistic era regularly featured pirates, either of the Greek or Punic variety, who spent their days separating star-crossed lovers. Given the prevalence of piracy, it’s a wonder anyone hooked up.

The Cilician pirates had a surprisingly long run as a thorn in Rome’s side. The rugged terrain where they hid and the Roman preference for land warfare gave the pirates an advantage. Another reason might be found in what the pirates did with people who couldn’t afford a ransom. They were sold as slaves. The voracious market for human chattel ensured the pirates could consider any coastal village a profit center. The Homeric rape of the Trojan women had become a routine commercial venture.

The pirates could also pose a serious threat to Rome. Cities such as Rome and Athens had growing populations with limited cropland. They relied on overseas grain to feed their populace. A massive pirate coalition like the Cilicians could choke off the food supplies and impose a famine. The Roman Senate finally dealt with this threat in 60 BC by giving Pompey the Great dictatorial powers over the entire Mediterranean and coastal areas. Seaside crucifixions surged and piracy abated. A lucky few were enslaved, though in reality they were incorporated onto Pompey’s staff as naval consultants.

The Roman Civil Wars from 48 BC to 32 BC, in part fueled by audacious power-grabs such as Pompey’s, nearly undid Pompey’s work. The Civil Wars ended with Augustus’s defeat of Pompey’s son, Sextus and Marc Antony in a pair of sea battles in 35 BC and 32 BC. In the new order piracy was no longer to be tolerated. Along with elite imperial bodyguards (the Praetorian Guard) and military police (the Urban Cohorts and Vigiles), Augustus gave Rome a navy.

-Dave Hardy

Obama Represents “Real” Change… In America’s Perception…

There might have been a short time when I considered myself democrat or republican. That was a long time ago. Just like people don’t allow themselves to be duped to many times by the same trick; I decided not to be suckered in by the false rhetoric of these (allegedly) different parties. Bush supporters dug their grave so deep the last 8 years that they had to stick with his false allegations of Iraq’s WMDs to the very end. They suffered through the surprise of Bush when he tried to clean his hands by saying “I never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11“. He managed to assert and insinuate his way at his goal (gaining popular support to attack Iraq by associating it with 9/11).

There’s a new guy in town now. One who’s suppose to “change” everything. This is old news, however there have been some new developments worth noting that point out the solidarity of the Bush regime with that of Obama’s. Firstly, there the fact that Obama is not pulling out of Iraq at all. Secondly, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan even though it has no clear goals. Thirdly, he is not seeking legal action against the those who sanctioned torture in the previous regime. Fourthly, he’s allowing torture under his own watch.

When Obama first started running for office he promised the voters that he would start pulling out troops from Iraq within 6 months. He later extended this time frame. Then extended it again. Some people believe that the reason he extended the time frame was because he became privy to some “secret presidential” information that made him change his mind, but I argue that this “secret” information is nothing special. We’ve just gotten through with 8 years of lies (oops), secret information and see where it got our foreign policy? What makes the above different from what any other politicians do? Am I to believe that even though he lied to the American people that deep down inside he wants to do different than Bush’s agenda????

When we first went into Afghanistan (on the heels of 9/11) we were suppose to be capturing Osama Bin Laden. Instead we just ended up staying there to die like all other great empires have done. Obama isn’t going to “Change” this situation either. Instead we will put more people there. Since when was an occupation necessary to capture one man in a country? Assuming that you think we went there without intentions of staying forever (which I don’t), then you have to wonder why we’re still there. We’ve overthrown their government, installed a new government, defeated the Taliban, and trained their new Army and Police. Why didn’t we leave after this was accomplished? Osama was already known to be in Pakistan by this time. Why didn’t we send in small strike teams to capture him and bring him back? Instead the policy shifted to occupying Afghanistan indefinitely while using RC planes to piss off the Pashtuuns on the other side of the border. Obama must have realized the futility of this military occupation by now. What does he expect to take place of the Taliban even if he kills them all? Another Taliban? Because that’s all he’s going to get.

One of the reasons that so many voters voted for Obama was because he said that he was going to restore America’s global image. This hinted that the human rights abuses of the previous regime were over.  It also hinted that there would be some justice. Instead he has actively shielded them from prosecution. His narrative on this has been “We must look forward not backwards”. According this slogan anybody should be forgiven, even Iran and the Palestinians, because we are looking ahead not backwards to what they’ve done in the past. However, this slogan has proven to be selective. You see we can’t forgive Iran for seeking Nuclear power because they had a weapons program in the past. Likewise, we cannot forgive the Palestinians because they’ve used terrorist tactics to try to push Israel out of Palestinian territory. Instead we should forgive the Bush regime and it’s accomplices for torture and the murder of 1 million plus civilians. Likewise, we will have to forgive Obama for the mass killing he has already commited according to this slogan. However, there can be no forgiveness for the drug user who’ll be locks in prison on felony charges. No, these crimes are too bad…..

Recently a detainee from Guantanamo was able to call out to Al Jazeera while making his 1 allowed phonecall. He was able to confirm that he was still being tortured even after the Obama regime had taken power. If fact he said that the treatment had intensified under the Obama presidency.

Is this really change?

No. It’s not.

What this presidency has done is change the American perception. Obama seems to have campaigned so effectively in the run up to the election that most people think that he’s incapable of doing anything wrong. I would like to remind people not to bury themselves too deeply with Obama. Remember that all people are just that “people”. Nobody is perfect or more than human. The moment that you put 100% of your faith in a president is the same moment you’ll be disappointed. As for myself… the government is illegitimate anyway so nobody will get my vote except for someone willing to stay out of Washington.

Peace….

Gregg County, TX Tea Party

I’m so far from neo-con or leftist culture that I must admit that I sort of laughed when I saw that FOX News and certain members of the lame-stream (see this for explanation), right/left media attempted to hijack a tea party first reintroduced on December 16, 2007 by the R3VOLUTION. But, I was pleased by what I saw in my city’s participation in an advertised non-partisan event. Here are some pics from Gregg County, Texas.

Libertarian Lady blames both sides of the aisle

new take on old slogan

The hubby of my tennis buddy knows a good message! Sent his employees out to spread the message and free car washes!

one of LL's fav signs

Yep, they tried to co-opt a freedom message and ended up supporting people JUST LIKE US!

GoshDarnitt, Freedom Is Popular!

The Powers to Raise and to Spend Taxes (Liberal Libertarians Discussion Topic #01)

The single greatest factor behind the rise and development of the English Parliament was taxation. What very quickly developed, and what lasted until the British Monarchy lost its functional power as a part of government and became a marginalized figurehead position (which happened over the course of the 1800s) was that the power to SPEND tax money was separated from the power to RAISE tax money. Under that system, only Parliament could RAISE tax money but only the Monarch could SPEND tax money. If the Monarch wanted to spend anything (for wars, his houses and mistresses, public building projects, anything) they had to convince Parliament to raise the necessary tax monies and give those money to him 9or her). Likewise, if Parliament wanted money spent on anything in particular, they had to convince the Monarch to agree to spend raised money in such ways. The inherent conflict within the system required negotiation and compromise from both sides. Sometimes one side would be more powerful than the other and would dictate to the other. Likewise, Kings would often not actually spend money as they agreed to. THOSE situations would lead to further conflicts in the future. Sometimes the Monarchs would simply get sick of their Parliaments and would dismiss them and not call another to replace it, but then the King could not raise any money. In those situations, the losers would usually be the common people who were hurt by both sides.

One of the main sources of conflicts between Monarchs and Parliaments (as in ALL nations) was the exorbitant costs of the wars which the Monarchs would want to fight. Because of the unique circumstances of both WWII and the Viet Nam war, Americans now think that wars create profit. They do not. Wars are and always have been burdensome drains on the public coffers. Monarchs want wars for various reasons, but those wars HAVE to be paid for… even in a dictatorship… and, historically, most wars bankrupt their nations as well as the other nations involved. Look at the current situation with our undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s not even get into the cost to human life or to property, let us just look at the actual fiscal cost to fight them, clean them up, care for our veterans afterwards, intelligence… all of it. The problem is, in America, because of the way the power to raise and spend tax monies is allocated, the dialogue is usually focused on questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with one side; on attempts to gain power by individuals, parties, factions, ideologies or branches of government; or is hurting our ability to deal with OTHER national priorities by saying we can’t question the money we spend on our wars so we cut the pennies in order to be able to keep throwing away the dollars.

So… in all of the discussion we hear these days about taxes, we are still simply talking about the ‘symptom’ of actual taxation rather than trying to explore the root causes of the actual problems. To ME, the issue is not whether or not taxes are too high, or if they are properly spent, it is that there is no incentive or system in place to DISCOURAGE spending OR raising tax money. If you give the people who have the power to SPEND your money the additional power of determining how MUCH of your money they can take you have the fox guarding the hen house. To me, before we talk about the very real issues of tax codes and policies in America, we need to talk about the basic powers involved in the fundamental issue of taxation.

Here is my personal idea, to start the ball rolling:

01.) ONLY The House of Representatives should have the power to RAISE tax monies. The functions of government which deal with raising and accounting for the expenditures of those monies should be placed under the authority of The House… the people’s house of government. I think that the IRS is the wrong organization for our nation but before it can be dismantled, we need to figure out something to take its place because its ROLE is, and will be necessary. We can NOT destroy something which has such a key role in the operation of our government (whether it SHOULD or should NOT HAVE that role is irrelevant… it does and it must be dealt with as a reality). The House should be completely in charge of our nation’s checking and savings account. This would result in Representatives keeping THEIR jobs in large part based on how they keep taxes low.

02.) ONLY the Senate should have the power to SPEND tax monies. The functions of government which deal with purchasing, contracting, supervising, etc. the expenditures of those monies should be placed under the authority of The Senate. The Senate should be completely in charge of our nation’s checkbooks, passbooks, and ATM cards. This would result in Senators keeping THEIR jobs in large part based on how much swag they can send back home.

03.) The President should be the mediator that coordinates the efforts of the two house of Congress and makes the deals. The President would also be the one who would make sure that all agreements between the two houses on both the raising AND the spending of tax monies would be followed to the letter. The President would be the one who makes sure that every side is honest with the other. The President would also be the one who signs off on all agreements (budgets) and certifies them as satisfying all sides and being in the best interest of the American people.

04.) All three parties involved (The House, The Senate and The Executive Branch) would have complete and unrestricted access to all records, notes, documents, EVERYTHING made or kept by any of the other parties regarding ANY issue regarding or relating to taxes. Further, all finalized, ratified and signed budgets and expenditure agreements shall have full force as LAWS for their durations and any violations of any parts if those agreements and budgets can be prosecuted as such, with the individuals responsible for those violations… ALL individuals at ALL levels up and down the ‘food chain’… being PERSONALLY accountable and liable for those violations (whether it is a Senator, the members of a specific committee, or a clerk who signs a check… EVERYONE is accountable and THUS has the motivation to be honest and above board about all actions and decisions regarding taxes).

05.) All three parties involved (The House, The Senate and The Executive Branch) would create a non-partisan, non-governmental committee or board, to which they will all appoint an equal number of members, which has the power and authority to review and mediate all agreements and violations and to make final and binding non-partisan decisions regarding the same when there are ANY questions about or challenges to finalized agreements or budgets which deal with tax monies and their expenditures. Each state would also get to choose one or two members of this board. Obviously all of the exact details would need to be carefully studied and worked out.

06.) SOMEHOW, The Federal Reserve and The National Bank (and any other such relevant entities) would be brought back under full federal control and incorporated into this who system… somehow.

No matter what our own personal and unrealistic idealistic vision of our government is, taxes are real, they are not going to go away and they ARE necessary. What WE need to do is to try to figure out how to make the system work better and fairer so that it can be a positive factor in our society rather than one which puts us at each others. throats.

Ok, those are my initial thoughts. What can anyone else contribute? How can anyone else make these ideas better or give us different ideas which are better? What can we do with this?

Recommended Readings for people interested in this topic are:

1.)For Good and Evil (Second Edition): The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization
By: Charles Adams (Tax Scholar and Historian, Cato Institute Fellow) http://www.amazon.com/Good-Evil-Second-Impact-Civilization/dp/1568332351/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224912619&sr=1-1

2.)Those Dirty Rotten taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America
By: Charles Adams (Tax Scholar and Historian, Cato Institute Fellow) http://www.amazon.com/Those-Dirty-Rotten-taxes-Revolts/dp/0684871149/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238470625&sr=1-1

Rhys M. Blavier
Romayor, Texas

© 2009 by Rhys M. Blavier

Thank you for reading this article. Please read my other articles and let me know what you think. I am writing them not to preach or to hear myself think but to try to create dialogs, debates and discussions on the nature of our government and how we can build upon and improve it based on what we have seen and learned over the course of the 225 years of The American Experiment.

To discuss this topic, the discussion thread is going on here: http://blavier.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/15/2688338-the-powers-to-raise-and-to-spend-taxes-liberal-libertarian-discussion-topic-01

57% of American’s want to attack N. Korea?

I have to wonder what has a hold of the American people. According to a recent poll 57% of Americans favor a military strike in response to N. Korea’s recent missile test. Most people don’t even know where N. Korea is on the map. The same group of people wouldn’t know why South Korea is our ally instead of North Korea. Most American’s don’t know that the end of the Korean war has not yet been declared. Furthermore, most American’s don’t know that South Korea has called to normalize ties with N. Korea in the past which the US president down played.

With these things in mind it’s a weird phenomenon that 57% of the American’s that participated in the poll would vote to murder Koreans to respond to a situation that they vastly don’t understand. Normally when people make an important decision like choosing a college, house , or car they will do weeks of research to make the right choice. Yet people are willing to sanction murder and willingly convert their tax dollars to murder without understanding the situation. Maybe I’m a weird guy but I think that human life is far more important than a car, house, college, oil, diamonds, or gold. With this in mind I think that people should do more research before they lend their support to mass murder of people they don’t even know.

Propaganda is not something that died in the days of the Soviet Union. I’m sure that you have have heard of the term “human relations”. This term was created by Sigman Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays. He understood that the term “propaganda” had a stigma associated with it. He created the term “human relations” to be a more acceptable term for propaganda. Subsequently we’ve seen numerous corporate human relations departments spring up to control the public image of corporations. Do any of the items below look familiar? They are all methods of propaganda.

• Ad nauseam

This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.

• Appeal to authority

Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.

• Appeal to fear

Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

• Appeal to prejudice

Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

• Bandwagon

Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.”

• Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
• Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

• Beautiful people

The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. (This is more used in advertising for products, instead of political reasons)

• Big Lie

The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the “big lie” generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.

Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

What does this have to do with N. Korea? I wanted to remind you that there are active systems in place in America that skew the mass’s reality. People don’t just miraculously think that Iran is bad, Iraq had WMD’s, Saddam helped Bin Laden, Amerika is a free country, or Hugo Chavez is an enemy of America. Indeed, there are mechanisms in place to instill and reinforce these idea’s in a person’s mind. The result of such mechanisms are people who feel confident when they say “we should go and kill other people in a foreign country for testing their missile launching capabilities”.

The way to uncover who the people are who’ve been manipulated is to scratch a little deeper in their logic. When you hear people say that “we should go kill some group of people in the world for whatever reason”, ask them “Why?”. If they recite what they heard on television then scratch a little deeper. I was talking to a coworker recently. She told me that if N. Korea gets 1 nuclear bomb then it might end up killing us. I asked her “How can one crude nuke compare to the few 100,000 nukes that America and Russia and Isreal have?”. We could shot down N. Korea’s nuke and still have enough ammo left to destroy the world a few 100 times over.

So you’re probably wondering what’s my point? The point is to remind you to be a critical thinker. When you look at the news be sure to engage your “B.S.” filter. Look for imperical data not the opinions of the reporter. When you see news shows that are full of opinions and not facts then that should set off a red flag in your mind. Sadly most modern news networks try to tell you what to think instead of presenting stories and leaving the judgement to you. As far as N. Korea and it’s missile tests go you might want to research N. Korea and the term “nuclear deterrence”.

Don’t be a puppet.

Peace…

WE MUST AMEND THE CONSTITUTION IMMEDIATELY OR AMERICA IS DOOMED… DOOMED, I TELL YOU, DOOMED!

We need to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage because people getting married to show their love of each other is an abomination… and because the idea of two guys or two ugly chicks making out with each other is just gross… and we can’t stop thinking about what it would be like to try it! We need to amend the Constitution to ban the burning of the American flag except by the Boy Scouts… and anyone who wants to dispose of a flag the way it is supposed to be disposed of, never mind that you can’t make people respect a symbol by passing laws which order them to We need to amend the Constitution to ban abortion because the wealthy can ALWAYS find doctors to take care of THEIR wives, mistresses and daughters! We need to amend the Constitution to allow school prayer and the reading of the Bible in school even though Jesus said “Do not practice your piety in public.”! We need to amend the Constitution to permit the use of the word ‘God‘ in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto because if WE are going to suck up to him, we damn sure want everyone else to be required to, also! We need to amend the Constitution and we have to amend it NOW, because the sky is falling on our heads… AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

For all of the ideologues who think that amending the Constitution is the appropriate way to enshrine their particular prejudices and passions, I want to ask you a question. Very simply, “Have you ever actually read The Constitution?“

The Constitution is a relatively simply document. Its length is only 4543 words, which isn’t all that much longer than this article. One key thing that is important about the Constitution is not what it says, but what it does NOT say. The Constitution does NOT say anything about social rules or the moral conduct of ‘we the people’ of The United States. The Constitution is an owner’s manual of how to operate our government. It does not tell its citizens how to live their lives. In fact, with the exception of our disastrous foray into social policy with the 18^th Amendment, which gave us both prohibition AND well financed organized crime, there is nothing in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendment which deals with dictating social or moral behaviors or beliefs to the American people.

Nowhere in the Constitution is a single word which even speaks to specific imposed restrictions on the rights of the citizens, unless you count treason, insurrection, piracy, counterfeiting, malfeasance in office or other such defined crimes as rights which are denied to ‘we the people’. It doesn’t even speak to obligations of ‘we the people’ TO the government, though it does speak of obligations which the government has to ‘we the people’. In fact, other than talking about issues such as voting, or rights before the courts, the Constitution itself barely even deals with individual citizens.

The Constitution itself does not say anything about WHEN, WHY, or FOR WHAT REASONS it should be amended. THOSE questions are left up to the citizens and the legislators of The United States to answer. Article V of The Constitution, in its entirety, says:

“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 states, 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 states, 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.”

Thus, whenever someone raises the issue of amending the Constitution, the first question that should be asked is: “Is the issue itself appropriate for inclusion?“

Amending The Constitution is, and was intended by the framers of The Constitution to be, a VERY difficult and VERY time consuming process. It is not supposed to be something that happens very often or for trivial reasons. To see how meaningless a constitution becomes when it can be easily and frequently amended one need only look at the state constitutions of either Texas (amended at least 632 times in 136 years [although Texas voters subsequently rejected at least 176 of them after our legislature passed them]) or Alabama (at 357,157 words it is about 40 times longer than the US Constitution and even three times longer than the longest national constitution of any sovereign nation in the world India, whose constitution has 444 articles, 12 schedules and 94 amendments, with a total of 117,369 words and is, unbelievably, an even worse document than the state constitution of Texas, which has been amended at least 798 times the last amendment was #799, but even the Alabama legislature couldn’t even keep track of how many there were and Amendment #693 doesn’t even exist in 108 years most of those amendments affecting only single individual counties or even cities, or regulate such minutiae at the salary as the Greene County Probate Judge).

Amendments to state constitutions, such as the one now being called for in Iowa by those scared to death by the idea of two people of the same sex even holding hands, often also seem to ignore the fact that the US Constitution takes precedence over them and has this little thing known as Article IV which includes such provisions as the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”) and the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”).

As difficult as it is to amend the US Constitution, it is therefore necessary and proper for both the Legislative and the Judicial branches to interpret and even expand on the meanings of both The Constitution AND of its 27 amendments. Please note, however, that while the very names of those two branches tells us of THEIR roles in that process (to ‘legislate’ and to ‘adjudicate’), no such power is given to the Executive branch, whose task is to ‘execute’ the laws and provisions of The Constitution and the other two branches. This was yet another aspect of our Constitutional government which was not understood by King George (Bush) II or his cronies in crime. Many people who want to use legislation (either federal or state) to counter or go around provisions of The Constitution, however, also show their ignorance of the document as Article VI specifically states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution of the United States was not conceived or written to tell ‘we the people’ how to live their personal lives or even to place burdens on them towards their Society or their government. It does, however, tell the government how to operate and imposes obligations on it towards ‘we the people’. The Constitution is not a downward directed document, written on the mountain and handed down to ‘we the people’ by a supreme being who must be obeyed. The Constitution was not written by the government to ‘we the people’. The Constitution was, instead, written by ‘we the people’ to tell their government what limits and restrictions are placed upon IT, and what powers and authority are granted to it by the citizens who agreed to be governed by it. I wish people would realize that when they think about using The Constitution for shaping American society according to their own preferences or to try to tell people how to live or what morals they should adopt based on their own prejudices, bigotries and beliefs.

So, if The Constitution focuses on the operation of our government rather than on the behaviors of its citizens, where does the whole debate about our rights originate? The framers of The Constitution believed in ‘natural rights’, the idea that people, by their very nature, HAVE (not ‘are given’, but by birth ‘have’) certain rights which precede the establishment of any government. When The Constitution was written, there was a huge debate about even listing the rights of the citizens of The United States because some feared that the very fact that some rights were enumerated within The Constitution would mean that there would be those who would later argue that rights which were NOT enumerated in The Constitution were not ones which the citizens would have. In Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton asks “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” and writes that a “bill of rights is not only unnecessary but even dangerous” for that very reason. James Madison told Thomas Jefferson that “I conceive that in a certain degree … the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.” The fear of many was the very idea that enumerating ANY rights within The Constitution be interpreted by any moron as meaning that citizens only had rights BECAUSE of The Constitution. The very intention of the framers was to emphasis that the entire purpose of creating The United States was to protect the rights of the citizens and that the very idea that rights had to be ‘given’ TO ‘we the people’ was monarchical and anathema to everything they believed in and stood for. Connecticut’s Roger Sherman, in his own proposed draft of a Bill of Rights says that “The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society.”

Much of the concept of natural rights which the framers believed in came from John Locke, the great philosopher and theorist of natural rights. He believed that the primary justification for even founding any government was specifically to make those rights more secure than they would be in a state of nature (a Society with NO government). Thus, the very reason to join together IN a governed Society is to provide ‘we the people’ protection of those rights by being part of a collective, governed Society which is not present in a lawless Society, in which the strong are able to prey on the weak and take those rights away from ‘we the people’. This is where the framers showed their true genius and foresight by giving us the 9^th and 10^th Amendments to The Constitution, the “if we forgot something, it’s covered, also” amendments.

The 9^th Amendment, in its entirety, states that:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The 10^th Amendment, in its entirety, says that:

“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.”

These are both very interesting Amendments. The 10^th is usually used to support arguments which advocate State’s Right’s against federal power by people without an awareness that States do not have rights, only powers (as specified in the literal wording of the Amendment), and that those powers are granted by the citizens. It is usually ignored that the 10^th tells us that, in addition to having rights, as provided for in the 9^th, ‘we the people’ ALSO have power. By the very wording of The Constitution, our government only has certain powers and authorities (specifically spelled out within The Constitution), while ‘we the people’ have rights IN ADDITION to powers and authorities. While there has been a lot of talk about the 10^th Amendment, especially since the end of Reconstruction in The South, and since the movement towards recognizing the civil rights of ALL citizens in the 40s and 50s, the 9^th may very well be the most ignored part of the entire Constitution. There even seems to be more case law that is based on the 11^th Amendment (“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 of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”), which was passed in response to one single Supreme Court case in 1793 (Chisholm v. Georgia), than there has been based on the 9^th. Most of the court cases which would seem to be obvious ones about the retained rights and powers of the citizens under the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, such as Roe v. Wade, typically hinge on arguments which use the provisions of the Section 1 clauses of the 14^th Amendments regarding Due Process and/or Privileges and Immunities (“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.”) as their foundations.

Why IS the 9^th Amendment so rarely raised, utilized or argued in American Courts? I think it is, very simply and fundamentally, because both the courts and our government are afraid of it. If we followed the literal provisions of the 9^th Amendment, both the courts and our entire government would have MUCH less power over the citizens than they would like. If we observed the provisions of the 9^th Amendment, the citizens would never have the burden to prove that they have certain or specific rights, the government and the courts would have the burden to prove that they DON’T. The party on whom the burden of proof rests has an MUCH more difficult case to make than the one which has the presumption of being correct or innocent. No government in history has ever wanted to bear that burden when they are challenging their own citizens, and courts are a function of government. Into this fray go those who advocate that The Constitution favors the government over the governed. One of the most prominent advocates of reading The Constitution as only protecting enumerated rights was Judge Robert Bork and his famous ‘inkblot’ interpretation of the 9^th Amendment. About the beliefs held by Judge Bork and those who interpret The Constitution using the same flawed concept of ‘originalism’ which he uses, that the only rights belonging to the citizens are those which are specifically spelled out in The Constitution and that any other ‘discovered’ rights are illegitimately ‘created’ by the courts, The Oxford Companion to The Supreme Court of the United States says:

Yet this skeptical view of unenumerated rights would have the practical effect of converting the original scheme of limited [and] defined powers [of the government] in a sea of individual rights into a scheme of limited enumerated rights in a sea of [unlimited] government powers.”

I would also ask those who advocate such positions as Judge Bork’s for his ‘original intent’ interpretation of The Constitution, “Why do you think that the framers of The Constitution destroyed all of their notes and minutes from the entire Constitutional Convention if not to keep those who followed them from relying on their intent and, thus, giving us the freedom to make this country what we want it to be and to be able to adapt it to the changing needs of Society?” While I have my own beliefs about requiring legislators to specify the goals and objectives for any legislation that they create (in order to make it easier for us to get rid of that legislation later), I can find no fault with the wisdom of the founders to deny us the knowledge of their ‘original’ intentions.

Anthony de Jasay, a Hungarian-born libertarian anarchist philosopher and economist who is best known for his writings against ‘the state’, talks about using a ‘Presumption of Liberty’ concept of natural rights. De Jasay argues that “liberty should be presumed, not because we have a “right” to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic.” In other words, instead of appealing to a person’s preference for liberty, logic dictates that liberty should be presumed. The critical rationalist and philosopher of science, Gerard Radnitzky, was so impressed with de Jasay’s case for the presumption of liberty that he stated that “for the first time the political philosophy of libertarianism and of classical liberalism has gotten a solid base in logic and epistemology.”

There is much to be considered by anyone who would advocate amending The Constitution with a goal of enshrining bigotry or prejudice within it, or of using it to take away rights from our citizens. To do so would be against every idea upon which The United States was created. I personally think that there should be (at least) four levels of rights and powers which should be considered by anyone who thinks they should have the right to tell everyone else what freedoms they do and do not have. They are, in order from highest to lowest:

1.) Rights that are retained by the people;

2.) Rights that are voluntarily surrendered by the people to the government;

3.) Rights that are suppressed by the people in our ‘voluntary’ association in a governed Society; and

4.) Rights that are repudiated by the people through the granting of certain powers and authority to the government.

Governments may have power, but only people have rights, and it is simply wrong for anyone to try to use our Constitutions to try to take away ANY of those rights. That is a ‘right’ which I do not believe anyone of ‘we the people’ ever gave away to anyone else.

As always, I want to acknowledge books and the Internet for giving me invaluable assistance in being able to use my mind and to write articles such as this. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Special thanks must be given, as is common for my constitutional articles, to The Oxford Companion to The Supreme Court of The United States (second edition), edited by Kermit L. Hall.

Rhys M. Blavier

Romayor, Texas

Truth, Justice and Honor… But Above All, Honor

© copyright 2008 by Rhys M. Blavier

The Establishment

We’re
Living in the Future and We’re
Living in the Past.
These are the dark Ages where
Man is trapped behind Cages of
Political Caste.

The
System rages on while
She remains steadfast.
A Rebellion She does wage at
Every Crook on the World Stage; their
Crimes are oh! so vast.

And She whispers in your Ear,
“The Revolution is inside of You.”

—Alexander S. Peak

The American Experiment

The history of the American Experiment in self government has always been viewed as a battle between dichotomous ideas struggling for supremacy over the other… federalist vs. anti-federalist; conservative vs. liberal; republican vs. democrat; urban vs. agrarian; north vs. south; east vs. west; central government vs. states rights; freedom vs. security; black vs. white; rich vs. poor; business vs. labor; educated vs. uneducated; interventionist vs. isolationist; inheritor vs. usurper; patriot vs. traitor; traditionalist vs revisionist; living constitution vs. original intent; hawk vs. dove; defender vs. apologist; secrecy vs. transparency; communist vs capitalist; church vs. state; chaos vs. order; good vs. evil; us vs. them; you vs. me. It is a mindset that can be expressed in the idea that ‘those who are not with us are against us and those who are against us are our enemies’. The history of the American Experiment has been seen as a polarized conflict between opposing forces but, what America has never been good at is recognizing nuance, shades of grey, middle ground or balance. Every side wants to lay claim to the high ground and the moral upper hand in the struggle against their opposites but what none of them seem to be able to recognize is that none of them are opposites and all of them need the other ‘side’. What no side acknowledges is that their side is not a side at all and is just as fragmented and torn by conflict as the larger struggle they see themselves engaged in. The reason the American Experiment is doomed to end in failure is because any lesson learned is seen as justification for a polar opposite rather than proof of the necessity for moderation… all sides are right, all sides are wrong… it is up to the center to hold.

The immediate aftermath of the ratification of the American Constitution and the institution of American Constitutional Government was a conflict over which side was the inheritor and defender of the Revolution and which was side was the traitor to its ideals. This conflict was given physical embodiment in the personages of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Consider, however, that both of these men in opposition, each fighting to define and advance their vision of the cause they had fought together for, each the personification of their side in opposition to the other, had the same enemy in Alexander Hamiliton. Consider that Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist as was Adams and that Hamilton saw the Republicans and the Virginian planter class as enemies to be destroyed, literally destroyed by armed force, and yet Hamilton was ultimately responsible for Jefferson’s election as President in recognition that Jefferson was a more honorable man than Aaron Burr was. The failure of the American Experiment, from its very beginning, was the failure to recognize that the the differing sides were not their enemies, they were their opposition, they were each necessary to provide balance. Like a gyroscope spinning, the opposing sides are part of the same circle and they are each needed to orbit and balance the other around the center to keep the whole thing from tearing itself apart. The extreme example of this can be seen in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Communist Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. One the embodiment of the extreme right and the other of the extreme left. Implacable enemies who truly hated each other and yet rather than being opposites at two end of a line, they were each on a circle and had gone so far around that circle that they were at the same place.

There is a zen lesson which balances the paradoxical idea of “if you love something, let it go…” and that is that if you want to overcome something you oppose you must embrace it, for only by accepting it can you understand it and only by understanding it can you control it. Keep in mind that our ‘my side vs. their side’ mentality ignores the reality that the the struggle between black and white also includes Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, as well as ignores that if someone was truly ‘racist’ they would automatically like everyone else of their race and automatically hate everyone else not of their race… oh yes, and what about those of mixed race… are they both or neither, us or them? The conflicts are illusory and blind us to our need for the ideas and strengths of our opposites. Consider the idea that there are no paradoxes, only things which we don’t understand enough to see the logic with makes seemingly disparate forces things that are unified. There are those who view history as being without order or a coherent order and that any effort to impose upon history as grand scheme is a lie. At the same time, there are those who see in history a purposful march from one great moment to the next. Adams and Jefferson discussed this in their voluminous correspondence between 1812 and 1826. But why can both ‘sides’ not be correct. If we apply the idea of chaos theory and fractal geometry to the discussion we can see an order WITHIN the disorder. This is an idea we must incorporate if we are to salvage anything from the American Experiment… the ordering of the chaotic.

Adams and Jefferson were both right. Jefferson was right that we need change, regular ‘revolution’, freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the tyranny of government. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many; the tyranny of the majority; permanent revolution; each generation is supreme. Adams was right that we need order and structure, stability, control and the advancement of the greater good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; majority rules; what holds today can be depended upon tomorrow. Jefferson and Adams were not enemies, they were partners in opposition… and if they had ever realized that and come together in common cause within the Constitution how different our nation might be today. Adams and Jefferson failed to recognize and tackle the greatest challenge history gave them… to join their disparate ideas into a unified whole. Our job now is to evaluate the successes and failures of the American Experiment and build a stronger institution for the benefit of those who will come after us. Jefferson and Adams should inspire us in their failure and give us the raw materials we need to build our foundation for the future.

Rhys M. Blavier
Romayor, Texas

Truth, Justice and Honor… But Above All, Honor

Too Dangerous for Canada!

It appears that the UK’s maverick anti-war MP George Galloway is too dangerous for Canada. Now if the ban were on the basis of Galloway’s appearance on Big Brother, I’d back the Canucks. The right to defend oneself against crappy reality TV is inalienable. But the stated reason is that Galloway is accused of giving money to the Palestinian radical group Hamas, which is banned in Canada and bombed in Gaza.

I can’t help but think that this ban is perhaps more motivated by Galloway’s outspoken views on the US invasion of Iraq, sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Whatever you think of Galloway, he seems to be in, well… company when it comes to being banned, censored, and punished for unorthodox views. Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP who has built a career on baiting radical Muslims, was banned from the UK where he was scheduled to show his film Fitna to the House of Lords. The UK Home Office said, “The government opposes extremism in all forms.” This may have been in reference to Wilders’ call to ban the Koran. The Lords had to make do with a double-bill of Django the Bastard and A Fistful of Dynamite.

Wilders and Galloway are just Euro-MPs, that’s practically banana-republic territory compared to the lofty eminence of the Imperial Presidency. But even here there is censorship. While President Obama will hardly be turned away from Beijing, the same can’t be said for his inauguration speech. China cut the part where Obama boasted of how the USA whupped Commie butt.

If you are a lowly professor like David Irving, countries that don’t like your speech might just decide they WANT you to stay. In Austria it is illegal to show such gross insensitivity to Jewish feelings as to deny or downplay the Holocaust. Not that there are many Jews left in Austria since they all got murdered without much of any Austrians lifting a finger back when it counted.  In 2006 David Irving got sentenced to three years in the Austrian calaboose for the crime of Holocaust Denial. For similar, but perhaps more effective activities, Kurt Waldheim got six years in the grim Hofburg Palace.

Well, I’m not even going to start on cartoons or magical-realist writers. Down at this level, you don’t ask no questions, you just run for your life!

Now some may argue that Galloway, Wilders, Obama, and Irving are all to one degree or another, opponents of free speech in others, supporters of state violence, or reality TV contestants. In short, they are united in being jerks. I won’t even argue the point. Rather I take my stand with Voltaire, I disagree with the jerk stuff you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it!

–Dave Hardy