Reordering the United States Government Chartering System

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Let Us Raise A Standard To Which The Wise And The Honest Can Repair; the event is in the hand of God. — George Washington

With all due respect to the honorable reverence for the noble founding of the United States, it has become necessary to understand the relevance of the preceding anecdote attributed to George Washington during the early stages of the Philadelphia Convention to deliberate the United States Constitution.

There are inherent errors in our constitutional system, and there have been erroneous adjustments along the way that further skew the decision making game theory and commissioning of the security departments that lead to the partisan chaos that we all recognize in the federal government. The chaos trickles down causing the social disorderliness that we endure, and there is only one way to correct the problem - a complete overhaul of the entire three-level system. All subsisting government and corporate charters are inherently flawed, because they lack adequate standards of reliability for identifying and organizing the “checks and balances.”

Although, George Washington’s comment seems to indicate less than a complete overhaul, it is not difficult to understand that the suggestion was made in an effort to motivate the delegates who were probably somewhat frustrated by their awareness of the incomplete information necessary for designing an expandable government to meet the needs for a federal government, much less, for an inevitably expanding nation of immigrants. It requires the actual intent and exercise of composing a corporate charter to be able to perceive the complex aspects for ordering directive systems for the evolution of an organization from simple start-up, to expansion, and then stable production. And the average citizens, who behold their civics instructors’ glorious descriptions of the Constitution, cannot comprehend anything after the suggestion that the system is inherently flawed and needs to be completely reordered to eliminate the corruption and partisan strategies for power - they dogmatically blame the nefarious boogie-man for exploiting the pureness of the Constitution, because then they can excuse themselves from the challenge to innovate the sophisticated system that the founders had to have imagined.

It would have been very awkward, and possibly counter-productive, for George Washington to have suggested anything other than that the founders efforts would duly serve their posterity, who would then be better informed by the evolution of the new government, the subsequent society, and advancement of technology.

The ambition is not to eliminate any of the principles of the American Founding. The ambition is to gather the information revealed and the most brilliant people from the diversity that the states have to offer to correctly organize the operations to properly deliver the principles. The primary mission to deliver domestic tranquility has obviously been diverted, because the erroneous government charters guide the politicians away from the proper deliberation of social equilibrium.

Do not be afraid to follow the science and reason.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
- Declaration of Independence, 1776

Contrary to the popular rhetoric, the founders of the United States are not turning in their graves because of the misuse of the Constitution, but rather, because of the continued exercise of their inadequate formulation of the government that has been compounded by miscalculated adjustments over the course of two hundred and fifty years. The founders would certainly not insist that their centuries old design for a balance of checks on power is working as promised. Perpetual corruption and relative social discontent indicate that the mission to deliver domestic tranquility has been skewed.

Ask any mediocre law student and they will confirm that the founders’ proclivity would be very welcoming to consider a reformulation of the government. The founders would not reject a proposal of a more sophisticated rendition of a separation of power. The Founders would review any new proposal and provide a critique.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

​

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

I'm not sure what you intend to argue with this statement, so I'll await clarification. The House of Representatives doesn't do the gerrymandering, State governments do. The House is gerrymandered to be as unrepresented as possible in many locations, and that is a serious problem. The problem is exacerbated by a Supreme Court that doesn't have a strong fidelity to certain constitutional principles because of partisan affiliation.

I think there is a general thread running through a number of arguments in this thread that attributes to the Constitution ills that have nothing to do with the document. Rather, they seem to blame the Constitution for not preventing bad things or conditions from existing. IMHO, that's just plain nonsense. No document has the ability to do so. Nations fight wars. Nations commit atrocities. People do not follow the dictates of their own laws all over the world regardless of how their country is organized. All of these things have occurred for time immemorial. The Constitution is not the cause of any of it, nor could it be.

I give you great credit, my friend, for putting forth a proposal that you believe would improve the structure of the Constitution. I disagree with it in many particulars, but it is not insubstantial.

The two most genius conceptions of the Constitution are the principle that government is instituted by the people up, rather than from the top down. (Failure of executing on that is largely the responsibility of the people themselves.) And of recognizing and segregating the functions of government. The latter, of course, was, not a new invention but a distillation of developments over the history of the mother country. What was new was placing them explicitly in counterpoise.

All governments are compromises, ours is certainly no exception. The Constitution is rife with compromises, but it is initiated with that recognition, toward "a more perfect union". It also set forth its goals:I don't think any of us dispute the worthiness of those goals even if imperfectly realized.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

The federal constitution was designed for organizing an economic union of sovereign states. States that at the time considered themselves to be culturally different than the others and capable of governing themselves. Understanding that, it is not that far fetched to recognize that the prominent founders were probably inspired to set the example of the approach to peace for Europe to follow, because of the history of warring. And so, since the establishment of the United States, the European Union is probably the only entity that has come close to trying to emulate the USA, but I do not believe that their charter resembles the almighty United States Constitution; and the EU is suffering organizational instability, and they would like to see the USA fall, as well.

So, your reference from 1986 suggests that there are 160 nations that follow the USA example cannot be true. At best they may divide their government into three branches just like the states. Do the state constitutions replicate the federal charter? You probably believe that the deployment of the three-part separation theory satisfies the qualification. I think your reference suggest that - I think it is a skewed assessment.

I think I am the only person in the United States that is able to conjure that argument. Everyone else seems to be overly forgiving of the imperfectness of the Constitution, and subsequent state charter systems, thereby reliving them of the responsibility to try to do what the founders would want a better informed society to do for the approach to liberty and world peace.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

I think the only way people can execute on that is by reordering the charter system. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
— Declaration of Independence, 1776

But of course, my rendering of the separation of the government powers is incorrect - right? You prefer this chaos.

​

And there is no reason to believe that after two hundred a forty years of unfurling a robust government, that it should be reordered to get it all correctly organized by correctly delegating the segregated missions and detailing the checks and balances between all of those entities.

When the federal government commenced the judiciary had yet to be organized, and as any mediocre student of American law knows, the start-up congressional sessions established the departments of war, state, treasury, and central bank; all of which should have been organized into the designed of the Constitution that is supposed to limit the government. Since then the judiciary has been reorganized three times, over a hundred security departments have been added and reorganized every time a new president is elected, the legislatures have been stripped of their intended representation; and subsequently, domestic tranquility has been marginalized in favor of toleration for tremendous private and public security apparatus.

It is a completely different government then what was described in the Constitution of 1787, and it is absurd to behold the attitude of supposed Constitutional orginalism.

It can be argued that the original design of the government was accurate in that there were only three security departments anticipated and established, treasury, state, and defense; and that those departments fairly aligned with the two legislatures and national referendum that elects the president. The treasury was subtly controlled by the House of Representatives with the “power of the purse.” The State Department was subtly controlled by the Senate with the power to appoint ambassadors, judiciary nominees, and ratify treaties and new states. And of course the military is controlled by the Commander and Chief.

It did not take long until the establishment of the central bank, and departments of commerce and interior, and because the society was relatively sparse and communications were slow, the government has been able to handle the expansion. But inevitably, because of the inadequacies in the design of the government, the honorable ambition of the founding looses its innocence, as is evident by the lack of children’s stories chronicling the entire evolution of American history. At some point in time the dogmatic guardians of the Almighty United States Constitution will have to recognize that an orderly government leads to an orderly society. As any mediocre student of American government knows, the contemporary annotated (update) version of the Constitution is a thousand pages . . . of disorder that leads the politicians to “fight” for their constituents - how is that supposed to work???

 

[Rich2018]

The EC is inherently undemocratic and shouldn't exist

The offices of head of government and head of state should be separated

The people should vote directly for president

The House of Representatives should elect the head of government from its own ranks.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

There is a reliable complimentary theory for the three-part separation of government, and that the subsequent system can be replicated for all levels of government and configurable for at least three municipal population sizes: small, standard, and large; and convertible to as many languages as possible.

In essence, the theory suggests that the traditional three parts be subdivided into six parts that are in alignment with each other, and serve as the foundation of a more sophisticated system of checks and balances that previous generations of legal scholars could not construct.

People are somewhat familiar with this theory, because it is very similar to the general interrogative list of six general questions: who, what, where, when, why, and how. This list has proven to be reliable for compiling the information concerning any event. Its reliability has a root formula that was not detected until recently. The root formula is applied to format lists, and the ordering of the interrogative list in accordance with the root formula is as follows:

0. event (primary subject)
1. what happened (supporting details)
2. how did it happen (supporting details)
3. who was involved (supporting details)
4. where did it happen (supporting details)
5. why did it happen (supporting details)
6. when did it happen (supporting details)

The root formula that orders the list is designated, “standard collation theory,” and it is a base-7 outline style of semantic cues, and is presented as follows:

0. process (primary subject)
1. systems (supporting details)
2. applications (supporting details)
3. individuation (supporting details)
4. organizations (supporting details)
5. doctrinations (supporting details)
6. collations (supporting details)

The system for government charters is derived from the same collation theory and exercises the basic legal nomenclature for the semantic cues to format the order of articles, sections, and subsections of an organizational charter:

0. sovereignty (primary subject)
1. jurisdiction (supporting details)
2. prosecution (supporting details)
3. diplomacy (supporting details)
4. commerce (supporting details)
5. trust (supporting details)
6. property (supporting details)


Upon the generational deliberation, calculations, and development, of the system of articles it was determined that the collation list of cues orders charters into a preamble and six acts of convention for ordering government:

0. Preamble
Act 1. Sovereignty
Act 2. Justice
Act 3. Liberty
Act 4. Economics
Act 5. Finance
Act 6. Documentation

The preamble and each act of convention is comprised of seven primary articles. The seven primary articles are then subdivided into six secondary articles for a total of 294 articles. The subsequent sections and subsections of the hierarchy are constructed in the six division format.

 

[Rich2018]

Are you trying to foster a debate or write a dissertation ?

 

[NWRatCon]

Too much to address at the moment, but I'm putting a marker on it.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Too much to address at the moment, but I'm putting a marker on it.

There is no rush - I am years ahead.
2008 - 2012 research and development of the collation theory.
2012 - 2014 development of the charter.
2015 - present development of the introduction and rules for conventions.

Are you trying to foster a debate or write a dissertation ?

I am trying to foster a constitutional convention series to solve the social problems we endure. I am presenting excerpts from my next edition of my treatise; due at the beginning of the new year. I am presenting as much information as possible, because it is a very complex subject, and the reforms that I am presenting are new, and people have a lot of difficulty understanding new information that challenges their understanding of systems that they thought were adequate for their intended purposes.

I am very lucky to have encountered NWRatCon. He is one of the few professionals that is practiced at comprehending new information that challenges the conventional wisdom. Very few lawyers, scientists, engineers, and programmers, waste their time at Internet discussion forums that allow the nonsense that goes on here.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Preamble table of contents (abridged)

000: Greeting

000.1: Introduction to the Problems with the Subsisting Charter System​

000.11: Constitutional Dogma​

000.12: Three-part Separation​

000.13: Civics​

000.14: Electoral System​

000.15: Public Trust​

000.16: Documentation​

000.2: General Reform Aspects of the Charter System Proposal​

000.21: Formatting Theory​

000.22: Six-part Separation​

000.23: Civics Enhancement​

000.24: Electoral System Reform​

000.25: Public Trust Reform​

000.26: Commencement of Conventions​

000.261: Request for Judiciary, Delegates, and Security​

000.262: Convention Schedule​

000.263: Convention Procedure​

000.264: Charter Validation​

000.265: Charter Ratification​

000.266: Charter Adoption​

000.3: Municipal Conventions​

000.4: State Conventions​

000.5: National Conventions​

000.6: Transition Security​

000.61: Honorary Invitations​

000.62: Commercial Reporter Access​

000.63: Public Access​

000.64: Persistence of Security Missions​

000.65: Prosecution of Interference​

000.66: Documentation​

001: state of the jurisdiction​

002: state of justice​

003: state of diplomacy​

004: state of commerce​

005: state of trust​

006: state of property​

010: complete reformation description
020: charter convention procedures
040: mission of the charter
030: designations of the constituent district
050: citizenship
060: commemorations

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Acts of Convention table of contents (abridged)

Preamble

000: greeting​

010: reformation description​

020: charter convention​

030: designations​

040: mission​

050: citizenship​

060: commemorations​

I. sovereignty

100: execution​

110: jurisdiction​

120: prosecution​

130: diplomacy​

140: commerce​

150: trust​

160: property​

II. justice

200: district security​

210: district sovereignty​

220: district court​

230: district jurisprudence​

240: district commerce​

250: district trust​

260: district property​

III. liberty

300: executive rights​

310: natural Rights​

320: legal rights​

330: diplomacy rights​

340: organizational rights​

350: exclusive rights​

360: posterity rights​

IV. economics

400: security​

410: administration​

420: court supervisors​

430: senate of jurors​

440: board of governors​

450: league of attorneys​

460: network of representatives​

V. finance

500: currency​

510: administration​

520: courts​

530: state​

540: commerce​

550: treasury​

560: interior​

VI. documentation

600: procedure law​

610: sovereignty law​

620: martial law​

630: diplomacy law​

640: commerce law​

650: trust law​

660: property law​

661: founding documents​

662: undefined​

663: undefined​

664: undefined​

665: undefined​

666: Constitution Law​

 

[Rich2018]

Sorry, way to much information for an internet debating forum

That requires an essay in response.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

It is an amazing coincidence that the proposed system has a unique correlation to the 1787 Constitution. Both charters have seven primary divisions, and the 1787 Preamble has seven principles that reasonably align with the seven aspects of the collation system being introduced.

0. (sovereignty) We the People of the United States,

1. (jurisdiction) in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. (prosecution) establish Justice,
3. (diplomacy) insure domestic Tranquility,
4. (commerce) provide for the common defence,
5. (trust) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
6. (property) do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Rich2018]

It is an amazing coincidence that the proposed system has a unique correlation to the 1787 Constitution. Both charters have seven primary divisions, and the 1787 Preamble has seven principles that reasonably align with the seven aspects of the collation system being introduced.

0. (sovereignty) We the People of the United States,

1. (jurisdiction) in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. (prosecution) establish Justice,
3. (diplomacy) insure domestic Tranquility,
4. (commerce) provide for the common defence,
5. (trust) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
6. (property) do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

*ensure

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

*ensure

Had me worried for a minute. I did not want to have a mistake like that.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1667751

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Rich2018]

Had me worried for a minute. I did not want to have a mistake like that.

I hate making mistakes too.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

View attachment 67309020​

Under "Executive". It is Chief Justice, not Cheif Justice. As for #4, Frank Sinatra passed away years ago.

 

[Rich2018]

Had me worried for a minute. I did not want to have a mistake like that.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1667751

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

Yep the Constitution got it wrong too.

Ensure = to make sure something happens
Insure = take out a financial contract, to receive monetary compensation, in the event of an unfavorable event happening.