STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE CITIZEN
These provisions collectively highlighted the updated Constitution's commitment to state sovereignty and its goal of establishing a more decentralized system of government in which individual states had substantial control over their own affairs and interactions with the central government, thus protecting the individual rights and property of the individual citizen and the stats within which they reside.
State Sovereignty Declaration: The updated Constitution should begin with a clear declaration of state sovereignty in its preamble, stating that "We, the people of the United States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character." This declaration underscores the belief that the States have voluntarily entered into a compact, the same way the original thirteen colonies joined voluntarily to form the United States. By emphasizing the "sovereign and independent character" of each state, the updated Constitution highlights the idea that these states retain their own authority and can choose to withdraw from the Compact if they deem it necessary. This emphasis on state sovereignty serves as a direct response to what the overwhelming majority perceive as federal overreach by the Federal government.
Executive Power: The updated Constitution must place firm limits on the extent of executive power and how that power may be used, and in what context. The ability of Presidents to make unilateral decisions (Executive Orders) that bind the entire nation to their own will is antithetical to the principles of self-rule and the principles of a republic as passed down through the Magna Carta, the US Constitution and our own Bill of Rights. The restriction of this power is fundamental to the formation of a government that serves the people, and not one that rule over it.
State Consent for Tariffs: The updated Constitution must require a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Congress to pass any law imposing or collecting tariffs. This provision is a reflection of the individual states' economic interests, as many of them rely heavily on agriculture and foreign trade. By making it more difficult to impose tariffs, the updated Constitution aims to protect states from economic policies that could harm their trade relationships. It also emphasized that the central government could not enact policies without the consent of a significant majority of states, reinforcing the idea of a more decentralized authority.
State Authority Over Militias: The updated Constitution must reestablish and cement the tradition of state authority over militias, allowing each state to appoint its own officers and organize its militia according to state law. This provision reflects the historical belief in state control over their own defense forces. It also ensures that individual states retain the ability to raise and command their own military units, which they could use for their defense against corrupt federal authority or for the broader defense of the states in compact if need be.
State Authority Over Internal Improvements: The updated Constitution must limit the central government's ability to invest in internal improvements, such as building roads and railways, without the consent of the affected states and individuals from whom the tax will arise which funds the improvement. This provision aims to protect state autonomy in determining their own infrastructure projects. It reinforces the idea that states should have a say in how their resources are used and that the central government does not have unrestricted control over such matters.
While the idea of state sovereignty is not new in American political thought, this updated Constitution seeks to enshrine it more explicitly as a reaction to what the modern Americans perceive as federal encroachments on their autonomy under the U.S. Constitution as it now exists and is interpreted by the modern bureaucratic state. In practice, the emphasis on state sovereignty in the updated Constitution will give individual states more control over their domestic policies and, to some extent, their interactions with the central government.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND LIMITATIONS ON POWER
Limiting Executive Power: The updated Constitution must seek limit the term of the United States President to a staggered length term. The first election of a President is for a 2-year term, a decision rooted in a deep-seated apprehension of concentrating too much power in the executive branch – a problem all Americans are keenly aware of. The second election of an individual for President is for a 4-year term, the reelection indicating that the people approve of the first two years performance. Modern Americans on both sides of the aisle are keenly aware of the tensions that have emerged in the United States, particularly between US Citizens, contemptible foreign policy, the Military Industrial Complex, Global Governance and the Federal Government, all of which is funneled through the lens of an overly powerful U.S. presidency. We believe that an executive office with the power that ours currently has greatly infringes upon the sovereignty of individual states and their citizens, undermining the core principle of state autonomy and individual rights which is central to the establishment of the States and the Compact to which they are signatories. As a result, we seek to restrict the president's ability to accumulate authority over time.
Avoiding Tyranny: We are influenced by the prevailing political actions and international events of our time which, when studied, emphasize the dangers of executive tyranny. We draw parallels to the U.S. presidency and believe that long-serving presidents often become tyrants by concentrating power in the executive branch and that power accumulated under one administration is always handed to the next, whereby accumulation continues. By limiting the president to an initial 2-year term, the updated Constitution aims to mitigate the risk of a leader becoming entrenched in power, fostering a system that promotes rotation in leadership. This rotation would, in theory, make it less likely for a president to become autocratic and encourage greater accountability to the people. If a President is elected to a second term, be that sequential or with another individual(s) in-between, this second term is then a 4-year term. This means that any single individual may only serve for a total of 6-years (as we still retain the two-term limit), and requires the population to reelect them after a two year, probationary like trial, in office. It is our hope that these measures may prevent the emergence of a strong, potentially oppressive executive within the Federal Government, force the executive to be responsive to the will of the people, thus protecting the rights and liberties of individual citizens.
Ensuring Frequent Accountability: One of the consequences of an initial two-year presidential term is the more frequent accountability of the executive to the electorate. With a shorter initial term, a president is forced to stand for re-election on his/her service to the people within that initial time-frame. This system allows the citizens to have a more direct say in the leadership of their country, ensuring that the president remains responsive to the people's wishes. We believe that frequent elections promote a form of self-governance that is more in line with the principles of popular sovereignty.
Promoting State Interests: These limitations on the president are closely tied to our overarching commitment to state sovereignty and the rights of the individual. It underscores the idea that the president should not hold office for an extended period, preventing the central government from gaining too much influence under any one individual. A shorter initial presidency means that there is a chance for more rotation in leadership and less potential for a powerful executive to overshadow the interests and rights of individual states and their citizens. This approach aims to maintain the focus on state autonomy and to avoid a consolidation of power in the central authority, specifically the Office o the President. By design, the updated Constitution prioritizes state interests and aims to establish a presidency with less authority and a more restricted tenure in service of the overarching principle of state sovereignty.
Overall, the limitations on the Office of the President in the updated Constitution reflect a desire to prevent the emergence of a tyrannical executive branch and to maintain a focus on state sovereignty and the individual. These efforts are a deliberate effort to address what we perceive as the flaws of the U.S. presidency and to establish a presidency with less authority and a more limited tenure.
TARIFFS AND TRADE
The differences in the handling of tariffs and trade between the current Constitution and the updated Constitution are influenced by the economic interests of the individual states and are a response to perceived shortcomings in the U.S. Constitution. These updated changes reflect our current reality, the disproportionate size of the tax base to the federal governments unwise spending habits, and the need to balance tariffs that promote industry and economy against those that hamper and harm trade, as well as those that support the well-being of the individual and the family unit.
Economic Interests of the Individual States: Many states, such as Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois, Texas, and Iowa, are heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly the cultivation of cash crops like corn, soybean, and wheat. The agricultural economy of so many states is intertwined with the development of national and global industries which are reliant on these crops, which plays a central role in these states economic prosperity. As a result, these states are highly dependent on the international market for the export of their agricultural products. Tariffs, which are taxes on imported and exported goods, have a significant impact on their economy, as they could affect the cost and demand for these important agricultural exports.
Regional Economic Interests: Just as various nations have distinct economic interests related to agriculture, technology, and industry, different states that are signed on to the national compact have varying economic interests. For example, one region may rely heavily on manufacturing and exports, while another may be more focused on agriculture, and a third may emphasize technology and services. These interests are to be protected by providing the States with increased power to both dispute federal trade deals, and to provide the States with an exit mechanism by which these disputed federal trade deals can be nullified within the boundaries of the State through State-level Congressional action supported by the Governor’s Office.
Calls for Economic Autonomy: In a modern context, regions or states may advocate for more control over trade and economic regulations, aiming to protect their unique economic interests. These calls may include demands for greater authority over tariff policies, trade agreements, taxation, and business regulations, and/or the ability to vacate or exit from deals that harm the interest of their State or the citizens of their State. The goal is to ensure that national economic policies align more closely with the economic well-being and needs of the specific region, and in having each State and Region succeed, the nation as a whole may succeed.
Emphasis on Protecting State-level Economic Interests: The changes in the updated Constitution aim to safeguard the economic interests of the individual states, which depended on unencumbered access to international markets for their own economic prosperity. By giving the state government more authority over tariffs and trade, we seek to ensure that trade policies begin to align more closely with the interests of the individual state, so long as they are not malignant towards any other. The provision reflects the belief that the individual States economic well-being hinges on unfettered trade, and by granting the State government greater control over trade-related matters, the updated Constitution establishes policies that allow States to protect themselves from bad National and International trade deals, partnerships, and/or accords.
In summary, the updated Constitution's approach to tariffs and trade is driven by the economic interests of the States, which rely heavily on their own economic success and prosperity. The provision aims to rectify what individual States perceive as inequitable tariff policies under the U.S. Constitution which often promote globalist policies and demand that States and Individuals abide by international accords which the people of any have never voted for and refocuses the prioritization on the protection and promotion of state-level economic well-being.
STATE AUTHORITY OVER MILITIAS
The provision regarding "State Authority Over Militias" in the updated Constitution is a reflection of the strong emphasis on state sovereignty and the desire to preserve individual states' control over their internal security and defense forces.
State Sovereignty and Militias: It is our firm belief that the Constitution must be deeply committed to the idea of state sovereignty, believing that individual states should have a high degree of autonomy over their internal affairs. One key aspect of this sovereignty is the authority to maintain and control militias. A militia, in this context, is a state-based, locally organized force that could be called upon for the defense of the state. These organizations are to be formed at the Town, City, and/or County level, or at a level which the members of that particular State deem appropriate. They must have the ability to integrate with other Militia's, Sheriff’s Departments, and integrate into a State-wide force under command of the Governor when needed. Any force not adhering to this structure or incapable of the required levels of integration is to be considered the Unorganized Militia, which is a separate and protected class.
Appointment of Officers: The updated Constitution must explicitly affirm that each state has the right to appoint its own officers for its militia. This means that state governments, rather than the central Federal government, are responsible for selecting and commissioning militia officers. By allowing states to appoint their own officers, the updated Constitution reinforces the principle of state control and autonomy over their defense forces. It emphasizes that states should have the authority to shape and oversee their militias as they see fit.
Organization According to State Law: The updated Constitution must emphasize that each state can organize its militia according to its own state laws. This provision highlights that states have the power to establish the structure, rules, and regulations governing their militias. It allows for a great deal of flexibility in how states managed their defense forces, aligning with the broader goal of state sovereignty.
Historical Context: This provision is influenced by the historical precedent of state-controlled militias in the early United States, dating back to the colonial and Revolutionary War periods. Many Founding Fathers, who also played roles in the framing of the Original Constitution, believed in the importance of a well-regulated militia as a counterbalance to a standing army and as a means of preserving liberty.
Practical Implications: In practice, this provision means that individual states retain considerable authority over their militia units, including decisions about training, organization, and deployment. It allows them to adapt their militias to their specific security needs and priorities. This emphasis on state authority over militias is a reflection of the broader desire to limit the powers of the federal government and protect the sovereignty of individual states and their citizens.
In sum, the provision in the updated Constitution concerning state authority over militias is a deliberate attempt to underscore the importance of state sovereignty and autonomy in the realm of defense and security. It grants individual states the power to appoint militia officers and organize their militias in accordance with their own state laws, in line with the overarching objective of limiting the authority of the federal government and empowering the states and their citizens.
STATE AUTHORITY OVER INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS
The provision regarding "State Authority Over Internal Improvements" in the updated Constitution is a manifestation of the broader principle of state sovereignty and the desire to protect states' autonomy in determining and managing their infrastructure projects.
Infrastructure Projects in the 21st Century: As we move through the 21st Century, internal improvements, such as building roads, railways, airports, digital & service infrastructure, ports and canals, are pivotal for economic development and connectivity within the United States. These projects can significantly impact trade, transportation, and economic growth. Individual States must have the power and authority to focus on improving all aspects of infrastructure, navigation, and transportation to facilitate the movement of goods to consumers and ports for export.
State Control Over Infrastructure: We believe the updated Constitution must emphasize the importance of allowing individual states to maintain control over their internal improvements. This means that states have the authority to decide what projects to undertake, where to allocate resources, and how to prioritize infrastructure development. This is a way of ensuring that states can tailor their infrastructure policies to their unique economic needs and objectives.
Consent of Affected States: A distinctive aspect of this provision is the requirement for the central government to seek the consent of any affected states before investing federal funds in internal improvements within a particular states borders. In essence, this provision enshrines the idea that the central government may not have unchecked authority to implement infrastructure projects that might impact the states without the states' approval. It emphasizes the principle of federalism, wherein states have a definitive say in decisions that directly affect their resources and territory.
Protection of State Autonomy: The provision aims to protect the autonomy of individual states by preventing the central government from making unilateral decisions on infrastructure projects. It reflects the desire of the states to maintain their authority over internal improvements, resist potential overreach by the central government, and ensure that their resources are used in ways that aligned with their specific economic and transportation needs.
Balancing State and Central Authority: The provision seeks to strike a balance between state and central authority, recognizing that some infrastructure projects might have broader implications beyond state borders. While states retain significant control, the central government may still be involved with the consent of the affected states. This is intended to prevent the central government from dominating all aspects of internal improvements and to allow for cooperative decision-making when necessary.
In summary, the updated Constitution's emphasis on state authority over internal improvements is a reflection of the overarching goal to protect state sovereignty and the autonomy of individual states in deciding how their resources and infrastructure projects should be managed. The provision emphasizes that states should have a substantial say in determining their own development priorities and that the central government should not have unrestricted control over such matters, thereby upholding the principle of federalism within a renewed Constitutional framework.
Be Kind To Your Neighbors,
CulturalHusbandry, 1776/2023