• PRINCIPLE #1: ALL PERSONS ARE RIGHTFULLY SOVEREIGN OVER THEIR OWN AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

• PRINCIPLE #2: FAMILIES SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER ALL FAMILY AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OR PRESENT AN IMMINENT, PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE LIFE OF INCLUDED CHILDREN

• PRINCIPLE #3: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE

• PRINCIPLE #4: GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE FORMED BY INITIAL UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THOSE TO BE GOVERNED BY SUCH, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUTUAL DEFENSE FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS.

• PRINCIPLE #5: CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE BY COVENANT AND QUALIFICATION RATHER THAN BY BIRTH, WHEREBY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, AND THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES (GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN) ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED.

• PRINCIPLE #6: EQUAL JUSTICE (not results) SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ALL CITIZENS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT STRICTLY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF ALL LAWMAKING POWER TO THE DEFENSE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

• PRINCIPLE #7: GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FINANCED BY USER FEES FOR ALL DIRECT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS AND GENERAL TAXES FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICES (DEFENSE, JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION, AND LEGISLATION); THE LATTER SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS.

• PRINCIPLE #8: MILITARY AND POLICE POWER OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHERE THERE EXISTS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS, AND TO ENFORCE LAWS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND BASED UPON THOSE RIGHTS. ANY ASSISTANCE FOR LIBERTY GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THIS NATION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY GOVERNMENT BUT CARRIED OUT BY VOLUNTARY MEASURES.

• PRINCIPLE #9: CITIZENS SHOULD BE PRIVATELY ARMED NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME, BUT TO ACT AS THE ULTIMATE FORCE AGAINST POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE CITIZEN COVENANT.

• PRINCIPLE #10: GOVERNMENT MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE AREAS OF UNLIMITED INTRUSION:
  1. PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER FEE.
  2. PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
  3. PROSECUTION OR MAKING ANY ACT A CRIME IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC COMPLAINANT OR VICTIM, EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE

PRINCIPLE #1:

ALL PERSONS SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER THEIR OWN AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

All persons have the right to be equally free and independent, and to possess equally the full range of fundamental rights, which are those powers to act or be, which all persons can possess simultaneously without exercising compulsion upon another.

There are only four truly fundamental rights that pertain to individual or personal sovereignty: These are the rights of

• LIFE, LIBERTY, OWNERSHIP, SELF DEFENSE.

Each of these rights has certain conditions which limit their application in a way that does not trespass against others equally asserting the same rights. There are also many corollary rights which are derived from these basic four. These have all been discussed in the previous section and detailed listing of fundamental rights.

Lets now take a brief look at the principle of sovereignty which will allow us to discuss individual, family, and national rights.

THREE AREAS OF RELATIVE SOVEREIGNTY: INDIVIDUAL, FAMILY, NATION

Sovereignty refers to the possession of ultimate authority within a certain framework of law. When one is sovereign in a certain area, there is no higher authority. He or she has the right to make all judgment and carry them out. In the context of liberty within a nation, we will be referring primarily to individual and family sovereignty relative to governments and other individuals or groups. Associations, including governmental associations, are merely extensions of the sovereignty of the individuals composing such associations.

The individual is sovereign (meaning the possession of ultimate earthly authority) over all his personal affairs which are not in direct and harmful conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

The family has certain sovereign powers distinct from the individual by virtue of the presence of dependent children who, having been brought into the family as a consequence of parental procreation, must be accorded special protection and training by those parents who engendered the child. While parents have given up a portion of their individual sovereignty by engendering a new child, they must also be accorded a special form of sovereignty with ultimate earthly authority over those children, short of acting in a way which presents an imminent and pernicious threat to the life of the child. The reason for this "balance" of authority and responsibility will be detailed later in the section on family sovereignty.

Lastly, individuals may group together and form associations by initial unanimous consent which also may act in sovereign matters relative to other persons or groups. A government is simply a large form of such an association of individuals, as will be explained later. The government association is never sovereign relative to its individual members (who constitute the creators and controllers of their government association), but is sovereign relative to other separate nations, or groups.

PRINCIPLE #2:

FAMILIES SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER ALL FAMILY AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OR PRESENT AN IMMINENT, PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE LIFE OF INCLUDED CHILDREN

FAMILY SOVEREIGNTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OVER FAMILY AFFAIRS

There exists a natural covenant relationship between parent and child, beginning at conception, that is binding upon the parents and requires them to assume the ultimate responsibility for child care, safety, and education until the child arrives at an ability or desire to be responsible for himself.

In deference to the voluntary covenant relationship which generally involves the sacred act engendering a child, governments should never be granted power to intercede in the affairs of parents and children as long as parents are not proven guilty of gross cruelty or extreme negligence which threatens the life of the child, as clearly defined in constitutionally restricted law, and in no case against the will of the child, when that child is of sufficient age to express that will and understand the alternatives.

In order to preserve family sovereignty from the slow, steady encroachment of government, parents must have full discretion over the care of children unless they reach a point which we may easily describe as imminently and perniciously threatening to the life of the child (e.g. child beating that is life threatening). While children have many times had to suffer from the poor decisions of parents, that seems to be one of the necessary prices to pay for freedom.

To allow the government to scrutinize the decisions of parents at any lower level than imminent (not the mere possibility of) threat to life, is to allow the government total ultimate authority over instruction, safety, discipline, nutrition and medical care. In short, all children become "wards of the state" which, besides being impractical, is a violation of the fundamental rights of parents. The specter of uniform state guidance in the care and upbringing of all children only guarantees an intellectually sterile generation, devoid of moral values. Agents of the government may be knowledgeable as to the things of the world, but they will lack the understanding and moral courage to defend freedom and personal moral and religious values of the individual family.

As a fundamental premise, the state can only legitimately interfere in family affairs in protection of the right to life. A child, as long as he remains in a dependent relationship, living off his parents, does not, and cannot claim his other rights. To do so would make the parents or their property the slaves of the child. Those rights are synonymous with being an independent person, qualified for citizenship.

The child is free to declare his rights and become independent at any time he or she may be capable of meeting the qualifications of citizenship, but in doing so he can no longer claim his dependent relationship. The implicit reasoning behind this is based upon the child's superior standing as to the covenant nature of the family. The parents engendered an automatic obligation, which they cannot break without harming the child. The child is the only one that can dissolve the bond since he had no choice in the act which brought him into the covenant relationship, and does no damage to the parents by dissolving their obligation to care for him. This concept does not attempt to make light of the emotional pain such separations may cause, only to indicate that disappointment and emotional pain usually cannot and should not be construed as adjudicable damage.

This aspect is worrisome to some families who have become accustomed to using the power of the state to compel a child to stay at home until reaching the legal age of maturity. Upon close examination, it is clear that the setting of an age for "maturity" or independence is quite arbitrary. There is no basis for it in principle. In fact, by handing over such powers to government determination, parents have unwittingly given justification to the state to enter into some REGULATION of family affairs, when dependent children have become independent and are not allowed to exercise that independence.

I believe I can demonstrate, to those who are worried about children being enticed away into evil paths through the exercise of independence, that such true freedom is less likely to induce a child to leave and is more beneficial to family relations in the long term, but only if we possess a complete structure of covenant government as explain in this work.

First, it must be remembered that, under these principles, there would be no permissive government welfare or social structure available to induce children to leave home and find a "free life." In a contractual government, every member of society would be required to have legal standing as a citizen, or be under a contract with a citizen, either as an employee or a dependent. The citizen would be responsible for the conduct and welfare of all non-citizen employees or dependents under his or her care. If a person wanted to establish independent citizenship, he would have to either sign the Constitutional covenant and become a citizen (obligating him to participate in citizen responsibility, including the payment of his share of legitimate taxes). Thus, leaving home would require a high degree of responsibility--not a welcome prospect unless the child was properly prepared or possessed some compelling reason to leave.

Given a high level of evil influences in a pluralistic society, most good parents would exercise their freedom to form covenant societies with other like minded people in order to shield their children from many of these harmful influences.

In such a society, if there were sufficient justification for a child wanting to leave home, for protection, he would probably have little trouble finding refuge with other good people. On the other hand, a rebellious child would have difficulty finding refuge within a small covenant group of like minded, good people. If he or she chose the non-covenant world for a first try at independence, the child would find the world fairly harsh under the full weight of self-responsibility and citizenship that may require a hefty examination and certification of financial responsibility. These factors would hardly be conducive to leaving home except under proper preparation.

Remember also that any act of rebellion against a parent's wishes which do not constitute the limits of cruelty is a form of declaration of one's independence. Such rebellion automatically relieves a parent of the obligation of support. While this would be technically defensible, I doubt if many parents would jump at the chance to stop support so quickly. Even if they did, the child could always bring himself back under covenant protection by complying with the wishes of the parent, as long as such erratic behavior did not become a tool of manipulation. This definition diminishes the danger of so-called "children's rights." Equating rebellion with independence is important because it protects a parent against a tyrannical child who would otherwise go to state authorities to force his parents to provide his wants while he refuses to help around the house.

But more importantly, it is better for parents to realize that THEY are responsible to ensure that they protect their developing children from influences that they deem harmful. Religious parents who allow their children to be constantly exposed to mindless television and the pervasive undisciplined bad behavior of public school children, or who live in an unsavory neighborhood, can hardly complain when their children develop problems. When parents rely upon the secular state to force their children to stay at home, the parents have either failed to properly attend to the upbringing of the child, or the parent's life is alien to the child (sometimes rightfully) or the child is simply innately rebellious.

Even in the latter case of full rebellion, the child will more quickly learn the folly of his ways by becoming subject to life's consequences than by continual pampering at home. Certainly, constant parental permissiveness of slothful conduct and acceptance of rebellion is not a proper solution. Removing a tough teen from you home may be tough to handle emotionally, but sometimes it is the only way that some children will learn. As in almost all areas of life, parents or individuals become better in their tasks when government does not attempt to secure them from their own errors. Government's only task is to prevent wrongful compulsion by others.

Lastly, one of the unique aspects of these principles is the final element which safeguards the family from intrusion by government. When there is a gray area concerning whether a certain family action is "life threatening" or "grossly negligent" and the state rules to take the children from the parents, the children can refuse to go with the state. More than any other safeguard, this effectively deters a state from declaring a family's religious beliefs as "gross mental cruelty" or spanking as "physical cruelty".

While I am aware of some cases of children who, even after child abuse, have desired to return to the parents, who are we to say that the child does not legitimately view life in an unknown foster home as a worse alternative than home? Often only one parent's care is enough to keep the child desiring to return home. In such cases, where a child prefers to stay at home, the government would have just cause to continue surveillance or even prosecute the parents. In view of the total picture, both for and against, I am convinced, that no normal child is such a glutton for punishment that they would not desire to leave after it becomes apparent that the parents are constant abusers. If the child is clearly and certifiable mentally deranged due to the abuse, the parents or parent responsible should go to jail and the child should be given over to proper private foster care. However, the simple act of desire to remain at home should never be allow as the sole determination of mental incompetency in the child. However the final determination should be by a jury of parents rather than by government officials or psychologists.

This whole question would not be such a problem to adjudicate if there were not such an entrenched hostility in social working circles toward spanking and physical punishment in general. Many view any type of physical punishment as "cruel and unusual" and are constantly attempting to convince legislatures and courts to outlaw firm physical discipline. Since it is nearly impossible to distinguish in law between a justified spanking and what social workers persist in calling "child abuse", I prefer to defer, short of "imminent threat to life" to family sovereignty. I think the damage has to be fairly rough to qualify as abuse--enough to cause bleeding, deep bruising, intentional burns or broken bones and the like, to be viewed as imminently threatening. I say this not because I am a callous person, but because we must remember that there are numerous circumstances in which children do wild things themselves which result in these injuries, and if the standard is set too low, the parents become suspects of abuse, every time a child goes to the hospital for an accident. There are also cases in which the parent is giving a well-deserved spanking and the rebellious child, in fighting back, may hit his head on something, or pull away and be injured without the intent of the parent. We don't want reasonable parents going to jail on an accident of mixed causes like this. Rabid anti-spankers will claim that the parent shouldn't have been struggling with or trying to spank the child in the first place. But when a parent is faced with really abusive children who prey upon their young siblings or in other ways severely threaten the order of the home, very strong action is required. Of course, I am of the opinion that if a parent has let things get this far, he or she has been way too permissive for too long anyway. But, parents must be free to take the full range of measures, short of physical harm, necessary to bring a tough teen into compliance.

Remember, the potential for long term damage to children is small given the principle which allows a child to voluntarily leave at any time.

There are obviously some gray areas in this discussion, which will of necessity have to be left up to human judgment. What I have attempted to do here is to secure a firm base upon which parents can control, to the largest extent, their family affairs. It is said that tough cases make bad law. We all have qualms about any injustice being done to children, but let us be wise, and also realize the magnitude of injustice that is possible if we allow the state to exercise the type of social control over the family as occurs in other socialist societies. Some mistakes and suffering do occur in freedom, but they are always the exception when compared to the all-powerful state.

PRINCIPLE #3:

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE

THE SUPERIORITY OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OVER EARTHLY LAW:

By the fundamental character and essential nature of freedom, the inviolable, fundamental rights of man shall never be made subject to political confirmation. They exist regardless of the nature and institution of governments on earth, and cannot therefore be denied, rightfully, even by a majority of persons using democratic powers. While they may be listed for reference and voluntary approval in a constitution, they are not, by nature, subject to the ratification or amendment process.

PRINCIPLE #4:

GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE FORMED BY INITIAL UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THOSE TO BE GOVERNED BY SUCH, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUTUAL DEFENSE FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS.

THE COMMON CONSENT DOCTRINE AND SUCCESSION

Within the society of citizens, laws enacted by majority rule are limited to those issues which directly and harmfully affect members of the majority, thus maintaining the free will of individuals and other minorities from democratic tyranny. Laws passed outside these and other constitutional bounds are null and void, and without effect.

In the act of forming a government, men do not cede their right to withdraw from the pact unless specifically stated in the citizen contract (which I would not recommend). Wisdom would dictate that freemen must never relinquish the right to revolution, which is: that men are free to reject any governmental association, at any time, if not afforded these essential fundamental rights, or in the absence of initial voluntary consent. This last phrase acknowledges the right of those who live under a non-contractual government to leave such government since majority rule-making was imposed upon them. I know of no true contractual government established by true common consent in existence today.

The foregoing doctrine points out two historical deficiencies in our constitutional Republic: First, the absence of full common consent in the beginning of the Republic, and second, the absence of a written citizen contract which each new citizen would be required to sign in order to be on an equal and unanimous footing with existing citizens.

The original founders of the American constitution were doctrinally committed to the concept of initial unanimous consent--what they called "common consent." The doctrine of the citizen compact goes back to Anglo-Saxon days, and was manifested at varying times, including the time when the original Pilgrims formed their Mayflower Compact. In essence, common consent meant that no man could be compelled to submit to the rule of the majority unless he voluntarily consented. Refusing to consent meant that he was still a "freeman" acting alone and free insofar as he did not tread on others' rights.

Under this common consent doctrine, the founders of the Constitution in 1787 knew that it would be improper to force any of the colonies to submit to the Constitution, even if a majority had ratified it. But unanimous consent did NOT mean that no state could implement the Constitution unless all agreed, it simply meant that it was only binding upon those that ratified it. In fact, the majority of colonies began to act under the Constitution's provisions before all had ratified it. The non-ratifying colonies were simply treated as separate sovereign nations. Eventually, the other Colonies saw that the advantages of joining outweighed the dangers they perceived in the document, and they joined in the union.

Unfortunately, while the founders correctly refrained from compelling other states to join the union, the states themselves failed to obtain the unanimous consent of their citizens. Once again, this doctrine did not require that they delayed acceptance of the Constitution until every citizen was in agreement, but it did require that those who did not agree were not bound by its provisions until they gave their consent. In essence the states voted by majority rule to force a minority to accept the majority's jurisdiction over certain aspects of their fundamental rights.

The danger of this is not so apparent until one envisions what kinds of laws the majority can implant upon a non-consenting minority. Suppose that the majority at that time were non land-owning peasants, and had voted to install a state and national constitution giving them the power to confiscate all lands over 500 acres "for the public good." The fact that all large land-owners would refuse to consent points out the virtue in requiring initial common consent from all.

If a state wants to attract the best people, the constitution must guarantee justice and fairness to the highest degree. The more arbitrary and capricious a constitution is, the less potential for universal support.

In reality there were certain aspects of the new Constitution that were dangerous, such as the lack of protection of the full range of fundamental rights, and the "necessary and proper" clause under which the Supreme Courts would allow massive intrusions of Congressional authority upon individual and state's rights. The Constitution possessed the seeds of monetary debasement in giving Congress the power to "regulate the value" of currency, and clearly avoided any language which would declare slavery a violation of human rights.

All of these objections were real and proper. Many people believe that majoritarian ratification was justified because of the rapid attainment of unity that it brought, but it was this very question of whether majority power could impose its will upon non-consenting states that brought us to the brink of destruction in the Civil War. As to the ultimate principles of government, the Confederacy was correct on one basic fundamental right: secession from the Union. They were wrong on one of the objects of that right--the defense of slavery.

Secession was an important doctrine for maintaining the essence of common consent. If we begin from the proposition that fundamental freedoms cannot be taken away by majority rule--they can only be ceded by individual voluntary consent, then we derive the fundamental premise that a majority cannot implant any system of government upon other freemen without their initial consent. This then implies that those who consent to majority will still possess the right to leave the group at any time, if the compact is broken and if the majority begins to encroach upon freedoms specifically not ceded or limited in the original agreement.

If the Supreme Court declares certain acts constitutional which a state believes is a violation of the original compact, it can simply disregard it under the doctrine that unconstitutional infringements on state or individual sovereignty (involving fundamental or contract rights) are null and void, and unenforceable. If the highest court rules the law constitutional and government decides to enforce the law with police powers, the state has to choose between compliance or secession, involving the loss of certain benefits as members of the union--primarily a matter of facilitated trade and joint protection powers. On all non-criminal matters, severance of relations with a state would be the only consequence of law--no jail terms for state officers would be proper or permissible.

Secession does not have to mean war, only that each body's ultimate sovereignty be respected. The northern states clearly violated the sovereignty of the southern states in forcing them back into the union. Such use of force clearly sets a precedent that no matter how tyrannical the Federal government becomes, no state or individual can leave. The peaceful right to secession should be stated in the constitution, and it should protect the fundamental rights of citizens both ways. In other words, no state could secede by majority rule, unless it continued to allow individuals who wished to remain part of the union to do so, without territorial integrity. This is a great difficulty, but not insurmountable.

No matter how pragmatic we all view the historical benefits of the union, the precedent of forced repatriation is no less onerous than the use of power in the Soviet Union to keep its conquered peoples within its dominance.

GOVERNMENT BY INITIAL COMMON CONSENT, IN DEFENSE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

As an extension of individual liberty, all men have the right to form a governmental association with others in the pursuit of a more effective defense of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, they may establish independence from all other governments in the pursuit of these fundamental rights.

This can only be rightfully accomplished through a covenant association, where ALL the governed consent to abide by the rule of law as enacted by elected leaders and officials, under pre-determined constitutional limitations on majority rule.

Within the covenant framework (which would include a Bill of Fundamental Rights, a Constitution, and a citizen signatory contract outlining duties and penalties for failure to comply), there are certain limited areas of authority delegated to the government for future determination. A citizen joining the national compact, or any special sub-unit thereof, agrees to abide by the laws enacted by elected representatives, and interpreted by the appropriate courts, insofar as such laws do not violate the initial compact defending fundamental rights.

Since it is improper to force someone to join a governmental association against his will, the enactment of laws and the enforcement thereof, by a government of majority rule, can only have effect upon those specifically consenting to such majority rule.

How would one possibly form a government under unanimous conditions? Unanimous does not mean "all at once." It means that whoever joins in the movement signs on voluntarily with full understanding and not through coercion by the majority. That is how the US Constitution began--only those states that agreed where part of it to begin with. Others joined later as they realized they would be greatly disadvantaged by not be a part of the whole. What I am saying is that individuals themselves must sign on--not just state governments--because states are controlled by majorities, and the minorities would not have been represented at all since the very inception of government.

But unlike former times, when there was a lot of unclaimed land on the earth, it is now impossible to start a new form of government without dealing with an existing government--and there are virtually no existing governments that are going to let anyone be free from their power to start a new one without the force of arms. So, there are only two possibilities short of revolution. First, men who want real liberty must wait for the occasional window of opportunity when the horrors of war or some other form of destruction destroys or brings an existing government to a crisis, and then try to control the majority influence in forming the new one. Or second, they must work, while under the umbrella of an existing government to gather enough people willing to sign on to a covenant government (while having no actual power) till they become a significant enough force to gain permission to start an enclave of freedom within the nation.

The first is essentially what happened in America--the loose federation of states was floundering in financial crisis right after a war of independence, that forced the need for a convention to remedy the government structural problems. But I think this highly unlikely today for two reasons.

1. The American revolution was unique in history, being a revolution of the higher, educated class of people. A much larger percentage of the educated, landed class that has ever existed before or since were well schooled in the English traditions of law and liberty. Very few of the leaders we have in power today have that same allegiance to liberty. A Constitutional convention today would be controlled by those who believe in raw democracy and many forms of socialism.

2. The colonists were coming from a weak, confederated form of government, which by its very nature, considered each state sovereign and independent from the others. So it was much more tolerant of the idea of each being a covenant society. Today we have an ever more powerful centralized government that has already demonstrated in the Civil War their intolerance for sovereign enclaves.

The second possibility is the only choice short of revolution. Convincing a majority to join in regaining freedom would seem at first glance an easy task, but it is not for this reason: the majority of people in every nation are on the other side--they either want and receive government benefits or they have become convinced that there is no harm in this. The historical tendency of human nature demonstrates that those who are corrupted by benefits will never give them up voluntarily unless they become enlightened by higher religious values--and they never come to those without war, death and destruction, and often not even then! Those that ignorantly sympathize with socialist benefits are almost as hard to change because the victims and dangers of socialist wealth transfer programs are hidden. In addition, almost all citizens of all nations are cut off from critical information by government controlled education and socialist control of the information media. I realize this is discouraging.

With all that said, I believe the only course of action is to set upon a course of establishing on paper a specific ideal form of government, and then set about the converting people to it, and refining the system, ideologically as we progress and interact with the best and brightest of those who desperately want a return to liberty. If we are successful in converting a significant body of citizens who can wield enough electoral power (would have to be at least 25% of the nation and more preferably a full 33%, as well as an absolute majority in at least one state) then there would exist either a possibility of pressuring a larger party to enter into a coalition for governance that would allow for a freedom enclave within the existing structure. Or, if a crisis of government arose, the liberty movement would be sufficient poised to negotiate an enclave status from a new form of government. Now, I realize this is a very difficult task given the level of benefit corruption today. This group and their sympathizers constitute a large majority, which is growing yearly. On the other end of the spectrum, the increased tension within the American nations is increasing the liberty side of the spectrum as well. But it is very undereducated due to the dominance of public education. A larger and larger portion of the youth are lost to socialism each year due to bad education. Those who consciously view themselves as conservatives of liberty are probably less than 10% of the nation and are heavily factionalized. So, there is much work to be done.

This enclave must involve a specific territory at least as large as one entire state (the state where that covenant body could control the majority in the legislative body), and where complete tax exemption from all levels of social and welfare taxes is granted to those who join the enclave. State citizens who are not part of the covenant would still pay welfare taxes and would continue to receive welfare benefits. There would, however be a tremendous incentive for every small business owner to join the enclave, since they would be free from all the onerous employee regulations and taxes that weigh so heavily upon entrepreneurs.

The essential ingredient to providing for the viability of a truly free, competitive society is not only receiving some minimal agreement on the right to a establish self-sufficient, self-directing governing enclave within the national federation, but also the right to expand it by voluntary consent of those adjoining the area. As the results of dynamic liberty become demonstrable and new people are converted and move into the enclave, the socialist model will begin to lose what productive class it has, and will have less and less wealth to confiscate and transfer to others. Hopefully the liberty enclave can then convince the suffering masses in the majoritarian, democratic-socialist sector to vote away their benefits and expand the covenant of liberty to themselves. Now, I am not naive enough the think this could happen without a severe crisis. Neither am I unaware that this large, corrupt majority would try every legislative maneuver to attach the wealth of the enclave to further service their benefits.

The proper way to expand liberty in an enclave system is by individual conversion one by one. You have to sell each person on the benefits of mutual defense of fundamental rights. Only those who join and become citizens would have the full range of protection of rights, and exemption from the burgeoning federal tax load. Here are some specific ways in which a citizen covenant would work:

PRINCIPLE #5:

CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE BY COVENANT AND QUALIFICATION RATHER THAN BY BIRTH, WHEREBY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, AND THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES (GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN) ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED.

THE CITIZEN CONTRACT: One of the ultimate safeguards of individual freedom is the use of a signature document for becoming a citizen of a constitutional republic. Since every relinquishment of one's fundamental rights, even though partial, necessitates a voluntary contract, it is indispensable that this process be formalized in a signature document.

Under this doctrine, no person, not even children of citizens, are recognized as citizens unless they have met the requirements of citizenship, are financially responsible to the contractual support obligations of government and commit to such in writing. This does not mean, however, that only citizens can live in the nation and enjoy the benefits of freedom. What it does require is that each non-citizen be contractually attached to a citizen. Thus, children have rights under the citizenship of their parents because of the obligation of parents to care for such, within the previously stated conditions. Leaving the home, therefore, is a major step--one which requires real preparation and serious consideration. Few would do so for flimsy reasons, therefore enhancing a teenager's sense of responsibility to prepare himself for citizenship, and to act as a responsible family member prior to stepping out on his own.

In like manner, any citizen is free to hire any person in the world, of whatever nationality (as part of his right to contract and dispose of assets) as long as he assumes full responsibility for the person under his contractual care. This system solves most problems involving unwanted illegal aliens. The liabilities of citizenship coupled with a citizen's desire to protect his status as a citizen would serve as an incentive to bring only competent, good people into this nation. There would be no welfare problems, as each person would be linked to a citizen for responsibility. Any person without such a link would be punished and deported. Punishment for illegal entry is important as a deterrent. Deportation alone is like getting a free and regular tour of the various border crossing areas--at taxpayer expense. There would be little excuse for good persons of foreign nationalities to attempt illegal entry given the ease of meeting the legal requirements through employment with a citizen.

People working under the protection of a citizen would not have a free ride. The citizen would have to pass on in lower wages the costs that he would incur to accept responsibility and head taxes for non-citizens, which would only be fair. This would provide an excellent inducement for persons of solid character and industry to apply themselves toward gaining the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.

The concept of a citizen contract would solve many other current problems as well. For example, a military draft is improper involuntary servitude, except under the pre-agreement of a citizenship contract where the limits of such service are defined beforehand. Also, strict limits upon government power, and taxation should be pre-agreed upon thereby eliminating coercive government policies as presently instituted. Citizenship might even be contingent upon exercising one's right to vote. It might also require an extensive examination in order to ensure that all applicants understand the principles of law and government that preserve liberty. I would strongly suggest the requirement that a person agree not to assist foreign governments that take others' property involuntarily (socialism). A uniform knowledge of the national language may also be appropriate.

The inducement to become a citizen would be obvious to those working hard enough to exercise their right of ownership. No one should be able to own property that required title protection (land, buildings, or other expensive, serialized assets) unless they became a contracting citizen agreeing to support the government set up to defend those rights.

PRINCIPLE #6:

EQUAL JUSTICE (not results) SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ALL CITIZENS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT STRICTLY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF ALL LAWMAKING POWER TO THE DEFENSE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

JUSTICE FOR ALL UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

The purpose of law is to define, codify and specify penalties for harmful behavior, and to do so in a uniform manner for all persons so that arbitrary and prejudicial behavior is removed from governing processes.. The purpose of a constitution is to set up the structure of government institutions and define and limit lawmaking and law enforcement power. There are good constitutions and bad constitutions. The best type is the one which sets up a structure that allows for speedy trials, judgments and penalties for legal infractions to be determined at the local level, and at the same time centralizes the powers of the federated local governments in national legislative, executive and judicial institutions. These institutions provide a basic and uniform body of law applicable to all citizens, a system of federal and appellate courts, a Constitutional Supreme court for ruling on the validity of laws, and an executive branch for enforcement of these laws. In addition, the national government has uniform powers of dealing with foreign policy matters. In this manner, there is a uniform body of basic law which all citizens everywhere can depend upon to defend fundamental rights uniformly, and, in addition, a fast reacting national defense force is provided so that the nation does not fall victim to an aggressor while internal debate is on going.

PRINCIPLES of Constitutional law:

all government functions involved in legislating, administering, interpreting and defending laws which require uniform application and interpretation to all citizens, should be handled at the national level.

Determination of applicability of law to specific circumstances, trial procedures, and enforcement of the law should occur at the lowest level of government having jurisdiction in the matter.

Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers of the National government should reside in separate institutions with appropriate cross-checks between these institutions to prevent any institution from infringing upon the fundamental rights of citizens.

The fundamental rights of man are only the basic elements of freedom. The implementation of freedom, where interaction with others is involved, requires a mutual compact or agreement on the rules of government. Unfortunately, in the exercise of their fundamental rights, men may ignorantly form a constitution where they give away all of their rights to government authorities under the enticement of the supposed benefits of state security and control. Thus, the illumination of fundamental rights in no way ensures the outcome of a great constitution. For this reason, principle #6 is a statement of the proper GUIDELINES for a constitution which guarantees justice for all and the preservation of fundamental rights. The following principles of justice are essential for a government charged with the defense of liberty:

UNIFORMITY AND PREEMINENCE OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXCEPT WHERE MEN UNANIMOUSLY AGREE TO ABIDE BY MORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS:

All men are entitled to the uniform application of constitutionally limited law, where similar circumstances exist pertaining to such law, and where men have not voluntarily agreed to abide by more stringent covenants.

Simply put, this means that the Federal government shall defend basic fundamental rights everywhere within the nation, but that such defense constitutes a minimum and maximum standard for majoritarian government, but not a maximum rule of law for covenant enclaves within the federal system. Present "public policy" rules which prohibit men from making private contracts constitute a violation of federal lawmaking powers and would not be legal under this doctrine of law.

Such application of the law shall be exercised without regard to class distinctions except where such the law is specifically addresses the special circumstances of a particular class. This means that matters of race, creed, and sex, for example, could be taken into consideration in the adjudication of law, but only if such class distinctions were directly relevant to the circumstances of the case, and specifically limited in application. Class distinctions, though a private fundamental right, are prohibited in all criminal cases where the nature of the crime is no matter who commits it. Class distinctions could not be used arbitrarily to declare a person guilty because he is a member of that group classification. Neither can class distinctions be used to exempt a group from a crime (such as youth offenders) when the crime meets the same standards of violence and vicious intent. In contrast gender differences could cause types of sexual offenses to be treated differently.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

All men should be deemed innocent until proven guilty by the verification of evidence and testimony.

This is the basic law of liberty and should be applied to both criminal and civil cases. However, this doctrine should not be used as a means to justify release of dangerous prisoners pending trial. It simply means that there must be presented sufficient and credible evidence of a crime to at least justify the internment. Habeas Corpus (a legal demand by representatives of the accused to bring forth the accused before a tribunal for review of the charges) is an essential right necessary to preclude indefinite and arbitrary imprisonment without charges being filed or brought to trial.

A police officer's sworn testimony of his personal knowledge of a violent crime or the sworn testimony of an eye witnesses should be sufficient preliminary evidence to establish internment. In order to avoid abuse, this concept has to be coupled with another principle making government officials personally responsible for false statements.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SHOULD ONLY BE INITIATED WITH THE CONSENT OF A CITIZEN GRAND JURY:

By placing a jury of the people at the beginning of criminal proceedings and at the end, for the final determination of guilt, we allow the citizens themselves to determine the appropriateness of both the law and the facts surrounding the case. If either are deemed to be improperly applied or unjust, no prosecution will commence. This procedure keeps a tyrannical official from doing damage to others for unjust reasons, which may involve the excessively strict application of the law in unwarranted circumstances. In order to be effective, grand juries should be completely independent and not subject to intimidation by persecution or judges. Jurors should have the power to make charges against judges or prosecutors who purposefully withhold evidence or manipulate the jury by legal threats.

DETERMINATION OF GUILT BY DUE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON THE ACCUSER

Due process means that the process of guilt determination should be uniform for all circumstances and codified in a manner not subject to arbitrary or retroactive changes. In this manner, the government cannot pass a law to prosecute people for something which is presently legal. The new law can only have affect on actions that take place after enactment.

The burden of proof must always be on the accuser. This doctrine would also apply to civil cases and would invalidate large portions of the tax code where the IRS is given arbitrary and unconstitutional powers to simply declare a person's presumed income, assess the tax and a penalty, and then make the accused prove that the IRS is wrong.

IN ANY COURT PROCEEDINGS, JUDGES SHALL BEAR THE ULTIMATE LIABILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL PARTIES TO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROSECUTIONS ARE PROTECTED.

This doctrine avoids the expensive and unjust procedure where the taxpayer is forced to pay for an attorney for the accused. This is not to say that lawyers would not or could not be used--only that the highest and most competent officer of the court would be charged with the protection of each party's rights, regardless of the financial condition of either party, rich or poor. Judges would be liable for showing any bias or allowing any arbitrary or one-sided procedure in court which unduly placed one party at an unjust disadvantage.

Judges are and always have been required to be impartial. Under this system, with both sides watching carefully for any favoritism, there would exist maximum incentives to remain fair. Judges have also been selected (presumably) because of their superior knowledge and long experience with the law. There is no valid reason why they ought not to exercise that impartiality and experience in ensuring the rights of both parties regardless of the presence of an attorney. This would tend to decrease the growing number of suits brought by defendants, claiming they were represented by an incompetent lawyer. While the possibility exists of incompetent judges, being far fewer in number than lawyers, they would be more noticeable and more quickly eliminated by this procedure.

THE ACCUSED IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO GIVE TESTIMONY AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DENIED LEGAL COUNSEL AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.

The right against self-incrimination should be held inviolate throughout the full range of judicial proceedings, especially where life or property may be in jeopardy. The right to legal counsel at one's own expense is also essential even though, in this system, the judge is ultimately liable for the protection of both party's rights.

THE ACCUSED MAY DEMAND EITHER A TRIAL BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS, OR A TRIAL BY A JUDGE. JURIES AND JUDGES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW AS WELL AS MATTERS OF FACT.

It is absolutely essential that judges and juries be able to judge the validity of the law--both as to its constitutionality and its applicability to the case at hand. While juries have traditionally been viewed as the ultimate safeguard against government abuse, I believe there is sufficient potential of public prejudice and ignorance that a person ought to be able to avoid a jury trial if he feels he may not gain a fair trial. The possibility of a criminal using this procedure to "shop" for a sympathetic judge is reduced by the liability the judge would carry to be impartial. The prosecuting attorney would challenge any attempt by the judge to distort the law in favor of the criminal. While a judge may declare a law void or inapplicable in a particular case, his justification must be on a solid ground of principles in order to avoid prosecution for breaking his oath of Constitutional allegiance and impartiality. Jury nullification would only apply to the case at hand, and to no others.

PUNISHMENT AND RETRIBUTION IN PROPORTION TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME

All laws governing the protection of the fundamental and contractual rights of the citizens should have a punishment affixed that is proportional to the seriousness of the act, taking into consideration the actual harm done and the restitution, if any, afforded to the victim.

The basic principles of effective punishment dictates that punishments should be sufficiently harsh and final so as to deter nearly all crime. A deterrent only stops criminal activity effectively when it is viewed as sufficiently unpleasant that potential criminals avoid even the approach to a crime. Thus criminals would cease to test the legal limits of permissive action and stay well clear of any offense.

The death penalty should be employed for serious and malicious crimes where permanent damage occurs that cannot be remedied by restitution. In my opinion, it should also be employed for all types of violent crimes after the third offense. There is no principle of justice that demands that taxpaying members of society have an obligation to support the lives of chronic criminals in prisons--especially with the luxuries now demanded by the courts.

If the death penalty does anything, it is the ultimate deterrent to a criminal's own future propensity to commit a crime. The one who dies will never kill again.

The multiple offending criminal likewise has demonstrated his unwillingness to respect the rights of others and should die or be exiled from the country if another country will voluntarily accept him. Those that violently deny to others their rights, including life, liberty and property can no longer claim those same rights. He or she is only left with the right to a fair and speedy trial. Even ownership rights should be taken away, to the extent necessary to pay any victims. A proper constitutional government has the right to take life as an extension of the fundamental right of self-defense, in accordance with the seriousness of the crime.

It is, however, a matter of legitimate disagreement among principled people as to what punishments should apply to various crimes. My opinions are a derivation of the principle of proper deterrence.

While the death penalty is more properly justified when there is clear evidence that a person is STILL a threat to other's rights, it is less so once the crime is over and the criminal shows no more disposition to evil. At this point we must recur to the doctrine of restitution and retribution, by prior agreement through the citizen covenant.

The doctrine of retribution states that each crime must have a punishment affixed, solely in response to the evils of the act--regardless of repentance of the criminal (obviously after the fact). Otherwise, a person would easily decide upon a crime, knowing that he could escape punishment by feigning sorrow for the act. Retributive punishment must be carried out so that every violation of rights has a just consequence--even if restitution is made. For some, crime would be very tempting if the only possible consequence was to simply repay--if caught.

Causing a criminal to repay 3 or 4 times the value is a form of punitive retribution, as well as restitution. While punitive punishment does not undue the act any more than sorrow, it does serve as a better deterrent than simple restitution.

However, as indicated earlier, punitive punishments should be limited to criminal cases. I am against all use of punitive punishments in civil tort cases unless malicious intent can be proven. The awarding of large punitive judgments in cases of injury to people for defects in products that not done with bad intent is ludicrous and puts a chilling effect on all new product development. I would, in general, be opposed to all damage claims to accidents where no direct fault of another is capable of being determined.

PRIOR RESTRAINT ONLY UPON IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE OR LIBERTY

Laws regulating or restricting individual action prior to any harm occurring should be allowed only in exceptional conditions where the threat to the life or liberty of someone other than the actor is imminent and extremely dangerous. Otherwise prosecution and punishment after the crime is preferred in order to secure liberty against progressive intrusion by regulation.

This doctrine is intended to make void almost all regulations of conduct prior to an offense, except those that meet the "imminently and extremely dangerous to others" test. As previously stated, vigorous prosecution of the offense after the fact, coupled with high penalties, can have a high deterrent effect that can accomplish the original aims of regulation--but without dangerous government powers.

THE INTENT OF THE LAWMAKER SHOULD ALWAYS BE ACCORDED PRIMACY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW

Documented statements of intent produced by the lawmakers should be considered concurrently in the consent process for law, as well as in subsequent interpretations by judicial authority.

ALL LAWS ENACTED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS OR IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF MEN ARE NULL AND VOID, AND UNENFORCEABLE.

The burden of proof is upon government to establish the validity of law in any challenge to its constitutionality. No enforcement can proceed prior to a ruling on its constitutionality. This does not preclude additional challenges by individual, who may disagree with the court's opinion.

As previously covered, this is a restatement of the doctrine of nullification--the power to disregard unjust laws. The presence of such a doctrine is to maintain an atmosphere of respect only for JUST law--not all law, which can often be tyrannical.

PRINCIPLE #7:

GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FINANCED BY USER FEES FOR ALL DIRECT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS AND GENERAL TAXES FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICES (DEFENSE, JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION, AND LEGISLATION); THE LATTER SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS.

PRINCIPLE #8:

MILITARY AND POLICE POWER OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHERE THERE EXISTS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS, AND TO ENFORCE LAWS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND BASED UPON THOSE RIGHTS. ANY ASSISTANCE FOR LIBERTY GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THIS NATION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY GOVERNMENT BUT CARRIED OUT BY VOLUNTARY MEASURES.

A PROPER FOREIGN POLICY:

The implicit assumption behind all government endeavors, in accordance with these principles, is that they must be based upon the defense of the fundamental rights of the citizens. This also applies to foreign affairs.

Citizens are free to trade and negotiate with any foreign person, except where such trade would aid an enemy of these rights.

In the case of a nation which had a socialist regime, (which by disposition violates the ownership rights of its citizens), it is doubtful if such a regime would constitute any direct threat to the freedoms of American citizens--unless it was trying to internationalize its system. If it were only a local violation of rights, our government could not prohibit citizens from trading with that government, as long as the citizen contract does not explicitly prohibit such trade. The suggested citizen compact previously described may appropriately require that all citizens agree to refrain from such trade.

Even if individuals were bound to withhold trade from socialist governments, they could still trade with individual citizens of that government as long as such trade would not aid the offending government. There is no reason to penalize the very people who are being oppressed by the socialist regime by denying them trade, which may even include the means to resist their oppressors.

In the case of a nation which is Marxist, operating under the doctrines of class warfare and world enslavement, any trade with such a government would constitute a threat to security. As such, it would justify an absolute prohibition of trade, though not necessarily to specific citizens of that nation who need assistance in overthrowing tyranny.

Additionally, both defensive and offensive military measures against such a government would be justified. We must never relinquish the right to launch out against any known aggressor who has stated his intention to "bury us" at any time and at any place, as long as another innocent party's rights are not infringed. In this regard, it is my philosophy that most of the populace and most of the young people pressed into military service in a Marxist regime are innocent, oppressed people. Our defensive measures (which includes offensive measures) should be aimed at the leadership responsible for the oppression as much as possible. There is no principle of good government which justifies giving criminal political leaders any diplomatic immunity or any other special protection from the consequences of the evils they have perpetrated.

However, that does not mean that it is necessarily proper or wise to fight every battle in every place in the world. Such decisions are the proper realm of representatives at the national level. Good men may differ about strategy, tactics, and the severity of the threat. The original American constitutional separations of power are appropriate here. The President is the Commander in Chief of all military forces but only has the power to action defensively to repel an imminent threat to the nation's actual territory. Military use for any other reason, including declarations of war must reside in the legislative branch of government. This system allows to enemy to attack a nation during legislative indecisions, and yet it keeps any single individual from sending men to war or as "peace keepers" or any other offensive activity.

In none of these cases would the national government be justified in doling out tax funds as foreign aid to other countries. Remember that the basic underlying principle is that general tax revenues can only be used for the unanimous benefit of all those providing the taxes--not for special interests. International welfare is just as much a violation of the property rights of taxpayers as coercive welfare is within the nation. The decision to give assets to another person or nation must stay strictly within the bounds of voluntary giving, in the absence of unanimous consent. I do believe that if the cause were just, many Americans would voluntarily give foreign aid in defense of liberty (assuming they had a much lower level of taxation).

Long term basing of troops in foreign countries for protection would also be improper. If a threat exists, it should be eliminated rapidly and swiftly, and the troops should be brought home and be released to civilian occupations.

In summary, this is not a isolationist or pacifist doctrine, but rather, a restrictive one that requires every act of government be justifiable as a defense of our liberties--all other government actions must be through the exercise of leadership and voluntary measures.

• PRINCIPLE #9: CITIZENS SHOULD BE PRIVATELY ARMED NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME, BUT TO ACT AS THE ULTIMATE FORCE AGAINST POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE CITIZEN COVENANT.

• PRINCIPLE #10: GOVERNMENT MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE AREAS OF UNLIMITED INTRUSION:
  1. PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER FEE.
  2. PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
  3. PROSECUTION OR MAKING ANY ACT A CRIME IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC COMPLAINANT OR VICTIM, EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE. dedication to a renewal of liberty and justice for all.

Back to Philosophy of Law & Government