1776? More like 1812 & you were the British

Love to modern Great Britain, Happy Jubilee (awkward), but in the 19th century back when the Sun Never Set they had landed in the newly founded Capitol and burned many of the works including the building defiled a year ago by insane, confused and seditious persons, to the ground.

With all due respect let's review 1776:

1.  No Representation no taxation may be an argument for regressive VAT, but it's No Taxation without Representation reminding us we were a subject colony with subservient order.

2.  Powers of the many States.  The many divergent interests couldn't agree on the definition of a human at the dawn of Science, yet they coalesced against greater tyranny.  Thus began a bold experiment transcendental of past singular State Independent Republics, such as 16th century Holland, because as declared was aligned with a greater cause, where many States we're considering outright independence, they chose instead, to attempt something never tried in human recorded history.

3.  United we stand divided we fall.  Since ancient China good leaders have known that great power of Unity, and we are often only as strong as the weakest link.  Although we have been given dominion over the planet, we are simultaneously a fragile biological creature, like any other that can also go extinct. 

International Interdependence is the key Technology of Government and philosophy that appears to have been discovered from the Seven Years War, a virtual World War of colonial powers- it also presented the opening for a century and a half of colonial rebellion, and independence of former colonies organizing as singular in the Age of Stateism.

4.  We are in perpetual formation, and so to be inclusive of what through reason, dignity and jurisprudence has since become the transitive right of all humankind in philosophy to reasonably unite in Congress to not just be nominally represented, to have these rights defended in common, but also in order to pursue Life, Liberty, and reasonable happiness that doesn't infringe upon any others same bundle of rights as citizens.  E pluribus unum.

5.  Division of powers.  King John may have signed and sealed the Magna Carta, but it acted as more of a promissory note in exchange for the tens of thousands more people whom the Dukes would be needing to regularly supply the King's endless Feudal warfare, back in those dismal days when it was much harder to raise a human, and we were much fewer.  

There were scores of repromises, compromises, and variations over the century following, but ultimately The Magna Carta writ bold was coveted as proof of some notion of independence from despots.  The articulation of all aspects of modern society post dark Age Europe could be said to have emerged from this fourteenth century experiment.

Once Washington reasonably agreed to lead, the idea of King of America was doomed, and in their best wisdom they divided the labors of State: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary to replace the King, Parliament, and Courts.

6.  No King's, Queens or Imperators!  The Agricultural realists that made this land knew life was an endurance of seasons.  A central figure is inefficient as an organizing principal in matters of progress, science and ethical administration.  Every two, four and six years the boldest, best and brightest should go to trade on behalf of their constituenties in good faith and conscience, regardless of political career (and leave eventually).

7.  Please, add to the list of rights responsibly, it's a work in progress.  The rights and responsibilities in our Bill of Rights are for everyone everywhere on US soil all the time, and when all of the above are disfunctioning, then please change... Including revise or remove, if needed.  

Conclusions: All human beings may be born of different station, place, rank, class, or situation, yet we are equally entitled to all rights such as the freedom of Religion, but also the freedom from any imposition of Religion, for example.  

The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights are of course imperfect documents written by human beings.  Washington stepped down from ostensible Kingship (contemporaneously other than maybe France, our allies, trading partners and opponents could only imagine him as Regent) he warned against imitating Sister Britain with the formation of parties, implying that although each Representative, Executive and Judge, also human, may be imperfect, All must make their choices and answer for them accountably to that constituency of voters, and their Maker.

The method to Washington's leadership was accompanied by humility, self awareness and the dignity and nobility of humanity like Cincinnatus two millenea before him to prefer freedom over power.

Our Civil War four score and seven after was further, unfortunately violent, correction of this power dynamic, but it can be linked to a nexus of biblical levels of iniquitous human chattelry, massive unjust territorial expansions causing disproportionate representation from an inconvenient distance and historical onerous circumstances, and international competition from foreign interests.

We have deescalated such power misalignments through negotiations, dialogue and compromise for a century and a half of something we call bipartisanship, and there is no reason for The United States of America to regress to past misalignments, unneeded partisanship, or violence.

People sacrificed in 1776 in order to plant the tree of Liberty for the future to enjoy- a considered answer to the long-term problems of humanity.

One year ago was an internal invasion of people, domestic terrorism, by mostly citizens, who by operation of law are now having lawful abridgement of those same rights granted to thus be responsible to pay penalty, fines and serve time for their crimes, as the largest, freest, most watched, most monitored lawful election in human history was certified.

We have but one Republic, and as Franklin said "if you can keep it!"

Job's, Jobs, jobs

The Book of Job in the Bible famously demonstrates the bet between Satan and God as to whether a true devotee can be made to foreswear the Lord.

 

Of course, after brutal trials, Job, eventually, liberated from false attachments finally receives the full blessing from Life having turned away from Temptations.

 

Sad, that the eponymous word for Livelihood, is slang for Faustian Test.  So, every day in employment is a challenge from Hell, under that thinking?

 

Too bad.

 

 

We need to rethink entirely the nature of Livelihood.  What is your pre-occupation, your occupation and animus where you are of highest and best use to Society, with the least cost to your health, wealth and soul.

 

Many people facing this Pandemic Crisis in the economy, like me, are reassessing what arethe actual Jobs and Job descriptions of the future going to become?

 

That said, before we earnestly discuss the Green New Deal, or any other Major Effort, let’s re-enshrine the Bill of Rights with a little history tour of how we come to the arrangement of being totally dependent upon a $14/hr. worker for distribution of goods and services that may have become so urgent, important and valuable, because of the exaggerated and impacted resource availability problems.

 

 

In 1215, The Lord descended from Heaven, signed a piece of paper with the Dukes and Barons of England, and admitted He was a human King.  Every squire, knave, groom and peasant within a Mile of Runnymede was promptly murdered for having witnessed the event.

 

From there, democracy in the modern American sense was born.  Flash cut to 250 years later, or there about, and we have the fundamental flaw in our Agrarian-style macro-economic theory.  A Serf is born, and he will be raised, live, then die as an attached beast of the land.  Probably not leaving to the capital London if once, they remained within about a 20-mile radius from where they were born.

 

They were often classed into task groups, and seasonally or during crisis tasks would be completely reassigned... all with little to no say by the Serf.  They were beasts to be manipulated, resources to be controlled and conquered, and base value of the farmlands, as pheasants improve the value of the Royal Forests.

 

It is only in this 21^stCentury where people have been born in ignorant bliss of Freedom and Liberty, and now are surprised by the hard and cruel facts of geopolitical macroeconomics.

 

The contrasts in this era are probably as about as stark as they may have ever been, only because they have never been more observable, simultaneously and worldwide.

 

So, the replay of the signing of the Magna Carta would have been videoed, and upon further review a human who was dressed as King signed a piece of paper.

 

 

Myths are being destroyed every day, and life can be very grim.

 

So, in redesigning and repurposing your livelihood, consider that your good work for other, hopefully helps to build a better future, a nicer present and a more pleasant understanding of the hard choices that came from the past.

 

We will get past all of this, because we process the economy individually and collectively, daily.

 

But, next time you get some fast food, now that the fragilities, weaknesses and errors of our macroeconomy are on display, maybe consider leaning on the tip.  Tip a nurse or care worker; or bring them some flowers; or a soda.  We humans are all in this together!

 

Not random acts of kindness, rather design your livelihood for purposeful kindnesses that you like to make and are good at doing.

 

Then maybe your jobwill just be a fair bargain with other people, without need for tests from outside powers?

 

Vision: Steady, safe and sane livelihoods; Multiple training pathways, nimble enough for lateral transfer, and ideally all correlated; and each employee with long-term prospects and full benefits.

 

What will you become in this trial?

(Original post, 1.28.08) Our Nation was founded during the Golden Age of Reason. We need a return to those core values.

Ben Franklin lobbied to have our National Symbol be the rattlesnake. We Agree. As much as we love our country and her Eagle, we have lost our way, and need Ben's Rattlesnake of Vigilance!

The Rattlesnake Party has five core values:

(1) Scientific Reason. A return to the primacy of Science as the basis for much of our decision making (including the Dismal Science of economics); Better Educational programs emphasizing Math, Science, Health, Logic, etc. to create a new generation of scientists, engineers and astronauts; and a Renaissance of Scientific Discovery which we are clearly on the verge of regardless of government funding-- however, we need to have ten to twenty "Apollo-style" projects to improve the climate, environment, science, space exploration, health, etc. (see more info.)

(2) Rule of Constitution. Reinstatement of habeas corpus; an end to unconstitutional practices by government; honoring the Bill of Rights; and expansion of those rights where applicable, when necessary. (see more info.)

(3) Plain English. All laws need to be written in plain English, if we expect to hold people and our Representatives accountable. The indecipherable nuances which the legal and governmental community create has driven us to the current state of affairs. This has led to corruption, cronyism, and quasi-legal corporate practices which leave the average American holding the can. (see more info.)

(4) Rule of Law. Once all laws are reorganized to say what they mean and mean what they say with plain English, a fair and consistent enforcement of such laws. Drug laws against addicts, Biased enforcement of laws as relates to race, ethnicity, or class, and unchecked Corporate crimes would come to a sudden halt. (see more info.)

(5) True Simple Flat Tax. A flat tax of 10% to all persons, entities (including corporations, and the like), and churches (which demonstrate a commercial surplus or profit) would generate ample treasure to the Government, reduce or eliminate the need for an IRS, save millions of man-hours and billions of dollars to improve productivity, reduce the tax burden on most people (rich and poor alike), and eliminate the corporate shenanigans which created such complex and labyrinthine tax codes in the first place. Although this would eliminate some Tax Preparation and Government jobs, we believe this would be made up for with the tremendous windfall to the Treasury due to a universal closure of loopholes. (see more info and more andmore.)

We are firm believers that there needs to be multi-party system and universal factions in Washington, DC. Our group is a Universal Faction designed to house any US Citizen of any affiliation, who agrees with part or, preferably, all of our ideals.

A Modest Proposition

This is my first post since the Trump Administration took over.

I will not reduce this piece in any manner towards the 'ad hominem,' attacking the individual flaws, not a rebuttal to the premise of the opposition, found throughout this nation today.  Remember 'ad hominem' is a fallacy.

We are at a juncture in our nation's life where decisions for the future are now being discussed.  Taxes, Health, and Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....

To whit:

In my treatise Metaeconomics, I define a non-tax structure of currencies to create a greater and more abundant state of living;

Seven Market Categories each with their own 'Class' of currencies calibrated to each market need.

1. Survival

2. Social

3. State

4. National

5. International

6. Bourses

7. Macrofinance

The premise and conclusion is that we are commodifying the bare necessities of life, and by not having a proper Benefit-Cost structure for everyone to agree to and reference, we inadvertently have put an actual dollar amount to the Earth, humanity itself, and the individual lives of citizens in general.

As such, I now entreat my recommendations to our present Administration.

The above scheme is well too complex for our current governments systems.  That said we need to talk about Milton Friedman's tax proposal the ruling party are now distorting vastly.  That is the little postcards we will be sending in to address nominally our annual tax portion.

I feel the current Congress wants to eat their cake and have it too.  It seems legislators take to tax exemptions like a cat to catnip-- they cant but help to assist their "constituent(s)" in being picked to 'win.'  Government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers!

I. When all loopholes are closed: we only need an across the board tax of 11%, no loopholes across the board, to over-fund the Treasury, and begin to pay down the debt, and balance the budget.  And to be clear this is across the board-- capital gains, passive income, asset transfer, etc.

1.  First tier, and first moneys are tax free!  The first earned annual $15,000 Single, $25,000 Joint, and $250,000 Business are not taxed.

By lifting the burden of the underclass, we will create an operating market that functions freely at the initial or lowest levels.  This ideally stimulates the creative forces to invest in themselves, but does not allow any taxpayer to 'subcontract' to themselves, so as to only declare minimum tax-free income in, say, five different Taxpayer IDs, that still wholly are the account of that prime TIN in order to avoid taxes altogether.

In other words, just as the FDIC insurance only covers banked money up to $250,000, many elite create "Account ladders," where each portion of their cash wealth is held in as many $250,000 bank accounts, as needed, to insure the whole fortune. 

Similarly, business declarations must be transparent-- that is the premise of the postcards.  We already have the means to audit in real time all the electronic transactions (that would include all Federally approved institutions) nationally.  Cash and assets would only be investigated on sums above this initial threshold.

2. Second tier, 10%-  No deductions no loopholes and no 'motivational tax.'  It is in the interest of the State to ensure that every citizen has the freedom and liberty to pursue their specific happiness. The abundant tax breaks are designed to encourage a citizen to (a) buy a home, (b) get married, and (c) have kids.  That is the formula to create more citizens, a natural resource.  The more citizens, the more tax revenue, and so tax breaks have been tinkered with to create the byzantine code extant.

After initial first tier clearance, this second tier would cap at $40,000 Single, $100,000 Joint, and $650,000 Business.

For example:

Ralph Doe made $38,000 in a year, he would only have a "tithe to the state" upon the remaining $23,000-- thus a tax of $2,300-- and Ralph can easily estimate how much to save, every year.  

The Smiths earned $55,000 jointly, and because they could anticipate and easily calculate, they saved to pay the 'tithe;' ($55k - $25k = $30 x .1 = $3,000).

Acme LLC, a small cap C-Corporation, earned $422,000 in a year, and having been granted the first $250k tax-free to do as they need and want, they then earned an additional $172,000 above the exemption ($422k-$250k=$172k x .1 = $17,200). 

Sorry no write offs or loop holes, because when Milton Friedman made the tax simplification argument, it included ending all the bizarre and overly detailed escapes from taxation creating an effective net zero. 

Large cap businesses currently operate with most or all of their tax liability erased by every esoteric tax break currently on the books-- not the nominal 39%.  The savings for larger companies will occur with the redundancy of certain financial specialists they require to staff in order to have the "net zero" tax.

3. Third Tier, 12.5% after second tier and up to: $100,000 Single, $250,000 Joint, and $1,000,000 Businesses, annually.

4. Fourth Tier, 15% after third tier and up to: $650,000 Single, $1,000,000 Joint, and $10,000,000 Businesses, annually.

5. Final Tier, 20% after fourth tier and after fourth tier annual maximums.

All loopholes and favors are closed, except the ability to write off only donations to any 501c3 non-profit organization.  Other 501s, such as political organizations, or any other TIN classes are not "Tax Free," and have to conform to the above scheme.  (Maybe also keep the Mortgage Deduction, [and the State-level taxes] but again that begins the slippery slope of horse trading for more esoteric tax breaks.)

This final nominal 20% should also be tithed upon all capital gains, estate, and transfer taxes above the fourth threshold-- and realize a net TAX CUT OF OVER 25%!

This is just a simple tithing scheme.

II. Trump Care (ACA)

Here I provide a simple testimonial;  The ACA saved my life.

I have been recovering my health since 2009 when I began experiencing what was diagnosed as Arthritis.  When I finally got ACA health care in 2014, I was allowed my pre-existing conditions to be treated, I began to successfully manage symptoms I would have died of probably by 2016 without healthcare.

It turns out I have been in chronic pain via fibromyalgia much of my life.

By creating a safety net for all citizens, we increase the Potential Energy of the Economy (promising intrinsic future GDP).

Health is critical.  I have argued in my last post extensively.

By allowing our overseas competition to fund free health care we compete with an implied reverse tariff against us.  By insuring their citizens, they relieve businesses of cost burden to carry Employees.

Further, if we just simply eliminate the age requirement for Medicare, and wrap the Federal Employee Insurance (that Congress and Federal Employees have), and the VA System in to the folds of Medicare and Medicaid, most citizens would be able to rid themselves of illness and diseases to improve our productivity.

This leads to one of the most serious issues for the general benefit and health of our citizenry: Environment.

III. Reconcile Environmental and Economic policies.

I am totally saddened by the situation in Japan of Fukushima.  The robots died within minutes of contacting the radiation pit spewing radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean and destroying our fisheries.  Not to mention Garbage Island.

We are at a juncture where if we fail to act and coordinate amongst ourselves as humans on this earth, Mother Earth will shake us off-- in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years-- at the rate we are going how much longer do you assume we can last?

The natural resources are being opened up to industry, and regulations are being diminished, destroyed and dumped like a bad habit.

Climate Extremity deniers have failed to prove their premise now for forty years!  Data regarding man-made carbon increases was first uncovered in the 1960's from a military surveillance in Hawaii.  By the 1980's James Burke appeared throughout the Western world attempting to explain the probabilities and ramifications of our unchecked growth.  In the 1990's Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., created the words, "thermodynamic system," in an earnest appeal to the public to help comprehend our situation of overall increasing temperatures.  By, 21st century, Vice-President Gore further explained that our ignorance is costing us RIGHT NOW, very dearly.

Which helps us to arrive at International Relations.

IV. The World occurs with or without us.

1. Environment: The Paris Accord has been the result of decades of International Negotiations-- Kyoto, Doha, and Paris-- representing monumental achievements of Diplomacy.

Our failure to embrace the completion of the International realization that we as a species have very little time to have any say in what world we leave the next seven generations is abysmal. This is no surprise to the "woke folk," including the 99.9% of Scientists that agree we are facing a Monumental Challenge as a species.

The people who doubt "Global Warming" have a point.  Earth still has winter.  But Snow (winter-- a Season, not a climate) doesn't disprove what is best termed Climate Extremity-- hurricanes needing a Category 6 level?  (Remember basic science: where if a molecule is heated the energy excites [expands], and that is how every day we boil water for coffee, tea, etc.-- hence oceans providing increasing water to the excited storms.)

2. Diplomacy: The 'talking tough,' emphasis on conflict in the International arena is a fools errand.

In my book (available as second draft [still haven't corrected the indexes]) Metaeconomics, I define Perpetual or Constant (k) Warfare (W).  Perpetual Warfare (kW) is impossible to sustain and is NOT STABILITY.  History bears this out over and over.

War makes profits.  It devistates the underclasses.  And it also destroys our Terra Firma upon which we succor.

V. Conclusion

We are simultaneously the Oldest Democracy, yet one of the younger nations.

In my various travels abroad, I have heard repeated many times the opinions that we are viewed as an Adolescent by the International community-- picking on the weakest Nuclear Power (NK), but also cozying up to the closest rival (Russia) and Bully.  We must shake off this juvenescence!

Until we can recognize the simultaneous pulls of on the one hand providing guidance to other democracies by best example and primary superpower, while on the other having the humility to learn from ancient nations (France, Japan, etc.), we will not be followed as a world leader within the International Community.

I hope we Americans can make something work to address all of the above.  But I wont be surprised if I am further ignored.... that's Okay, because I am pushing neither "Like," nor "Ignore" on my Social Media radar. Life is more subtle and complex than the simple binary matrices we prefer, just because it fits in our head.

In this day of instant gratifications, immediate knowledge, and mass sub-culturalism (where people only listen to what agrees with their world view, as opposed to facts of concrete reality) we must comprehend that facts, factors, and proven (amongst all the sciences here we reviewed, economic) theory should be respected, observed and obeyed.

I am not going to go for another 30 years with the elites arguing that 'trickle down economics' operates within the mechanics of economy, is somehow to the benefit of all, and good economic and social policy (lest we compare the environmental disasters we are regularly carrying out in this grand open chemistry experiment).

So 'snapoutofit' and create reasonable by-partisan laws with clear-eyed leadership, please.

4 years of low hanging fruit

Obama gave a somewhat inspired if not entirely exciting State of the Union.

The key notes I heard that I will hold him and the Democrats to account for in 4 years:

1. End the War
2. Universal pre-school
3. Access to benefits / retention of Obamacare-Social Security-Medicare
4. Improved Veterans Benefits
5. Active measures to improve the economy by improving Energy Independence and the Environment.

It is mostly on this last point that I will speak;

a. Tax Reform equals Environmental reform.
b. End subsidization of archane technologies and established players, back to investor of first and last resort.
c. Support STEMs in Education.

a. By closing loopholes in a conscientious and clear manner, there will no longer be a dispensation for making profit at all costs (where the environment takes the burden as resource and resolution).

Although not as clearly defined by the powers-that-be, the need for reform has a throughput onto the ideas introduced by Schumacher as Small is Beautiful. becomes that ecosystem and ecological thinking is in effect environmentally correct long-term economic development.

Obama was dancing at the edge of this thinking without removing any of his obvious commitments to the Corporate System.

However, a clever tax system will try to become clever by half playing "lets make a deal."  The second step to truly resolving the Environmental equation for Cost-Benefit-Analysis is for holistic and conscientious Tort Reform.  That is a hot potato in the Do Nothing Congress Part II we are effectively beginning to witness (although I am open to being wrong-- see Sequestration).


b. Corn Ethynol, Oil, and Fracking are all subsidized, although science clearly puts them in the back of the Carbon efficiency line (would that they list in order from most to least carbon efficient).  That carbon efficiency in conjunction with time for development (with unlimited resources) should inform what priority to grant and burse the otherwise limited resources dedicated to Energy and Technology.

As mentioned, the investments by the people for the people are best as first and last resort-- like radio and other experimental technologies the US government and the people have been the ones who "built the railroad," not the tycoons who then scooped up and organized for profit the activities.

Hopefully in four years we will have sensibly realigned subsides so that the only thing big oil is getting is small relief for the retooling of extant refineries to become clean, non-polluting, and carbon efficient.


c. All other social concerns aside, and with the full-throated support of the scientifically true "first five," as we call early childhood development, education and care in California, the next step is to raise a generation not afraid to do math, believe in science, or be transparent in their actions as citizens.

It is not the government that will lead the inevitable democratization of truth, rather it is the people.  Let's pay teachers what they are due for tending the most valuable natural resource we have, isn't it time?

I didn't hear a "socialist" argument as the Republicans over the decades are fond to label, rather a proactive agenda on education that accepted truths (like global warming) where for whatever reason the less than 1% of scientists disagree with the issue writ large (does climate change exist?).

A fact-based reality based education system will, informed by all the sciences and technologies, force a fundamental zugzwang by the Federal in favor of the local education officials-- and that is something I have heard every republican quick on the "commie," or "Socialist," trigger belly ache for power to rest in the local not Federal powers where education is concerned.

Yet, it was Bush II, who forced the random test driven multiple choice idiocracy called "no child left behind."

Incentivize the collaboration in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) with new and existing public-private relationships by also having the principles found in STEM, logic, and reason inform the process and development of this completely new world of education, knowledge, and technology, and any disadvantage from the retooling of our outmoded educational system (writ large) will fall away very quickly once children are given the access to tools already available-- just not very widely at time of publication.

Lets see if reason will spread like a disease in the next four years, or will we continue to appear as a gorilla chasing its tail to the rest of the world?

The Golden Fleece-down

Comcast won approval. Okay, but (and I haven't read the resrictions) should we not limit this transaction from a perspective of the possession or easement of telecommunicative ("two-way") devices in places of private residence or commerce in conjunction with the Potential of an implied warrant* the real issue: data mining, data collection, financial data sharing; etc.

*The former issue was similar to the subsidized railways of the 19th century, and now that much of the hard infrastructure is "owned," this implied or real monopoly on a market-by-market basis, in conjunction with certain content monopoly issues (channel restrictions, access limitations, and slower speeds for content not preferred) all imply that this will be bad for consumers.

This is a merger of Producer and Distributor to attempt to break this deal down into the simplest terms, and they have the customers "clicks" right in their hand.

I have Comcast Service, and it isn't as good as all that. Technical issues quite frequently, and local outages. That said, ATT U-Verse had major outages right over the holidays (as many are well aware) nation wide.

I would like to see better consumer protections... my bill has only gone up, and not just as a direct function of inflation.

How does this benefit consumers directly?

President's Question Time

An incredible display of the evolution of democracy and accountability was put on by President Obama this week.

To me, this was a culmination of what I am only assuming was fine political calculation.

My assumption, based on absolutely nothing other than life experience alone: This kind of "Prime Minister's Question Time" was something candidate Obama had on his Transparency Wishlist.

But President ranks somewhere between King and Prime Minister here in the USA, so the UK model isn't totally apt; besides this was ('would be' goes the imaginary explanation to then candidate Obama) a radical step which needed to be timed correctly. I cant imagine how much more apt this exercise's introduction to the dialogue of transparency and accountability could have been.

Remarkable points;

(I) Had Obama done this earlier, in say August, the flux af the situation could have greatly distorted outcomes of the various vitriol of the time (people yelling at politicians in town halls about false rumors).

(II) By waiting a full year to watch as the Congress fiddled while the US was burning, Obama has now set himself apart from their poor favorability-- all parties.

(III) Having all but lost this first match (in what is expected to be a three to eight match game) in the health care issue, in spite of many accomplishments by the Congress, the culture of Partisanship was writ large by the election of the Junior Senator from MA. Obama's final answer hammered home the point about no one talking with one another, looking only to score rhetorical points, and the active schadenfreude by both parties and their mouthpieces-- including the acts and deeds to extend and further that attitude of blame and buck passing.

(IV) Responding to the situation of somehow 51 Senators no longer being considered a majority, rather that the threat of cloture and filibuster was so persistent by this sessions Republican's now 60 barely qualified as a majority, he held this first televised question time with the Republican's. He had earlier held question time with Democrats, but did not televise that. This partial version of the UK PM?T, essentially broadsided the Pubs into having to answer for the elephant in the room (pun intended), that of the obstructionist tact.

(V) Finally, like a breath of fresh air, this display of scholarly brinksmanship, artful rhetoric, and skilled debate highlighted the features of a qualified President! It does not matter what that President's policies are... the question is do we have an Executive truly capable and qualified to be the Chief? A command of details and issues, clarity in thought and actions, and accurate language to reflect the inner mind of a political genius. All POTUS' are by definition political geniuses (sorry rabid detractors of Bush II), because somehow they got there to the station of our republic's modern Ceasar. If somehow Obama makes this a regular feature of our modern 21st Century 24 hour News democracy/political cycle, then we can expect it, like the State of the Union, to be an essential set piece for the abilities of any future POTUS or would-be POTUS-- much as it is already standard form for any PM or shadow Minister to be able to stand the hot seat of the multiparty question time held in the UK's House of Commons almost weekly.

***

SO my humble suggestions:

(A) Next time, treat it exactly like the PM?T and have all members of either the Senate or House (not both at the same time, but from all parties) voluntarily attend the televised question time. This will then promote a semblance of dialogue, because by then calling from the various parties and factions in alternate, there approximates the status of a political conversation or national dialogue (NOT DIRECTED BY THE MEDIA!).

(B) To be fair to everyone, let's have these events as more or less scheduled set pieces, no sudden TV cameras in the room at the last minute. That said, probably one of these per quarter is more towards our Corporation style republic model, as opposed to the weekly meeting of Ministers and MPs in just the lower house version in UK. (Also, probably best to have these set about two to three weeks after recess has ended so (i) the members would have fresh info from constituents, (ii) any changes from elections and such would be more or less in place, and (iii) everyone was making a fresh start-- more or less.)

(C) Like PM?T, maybe have some Cabinet Members available to be referred to for details? I think in the case of our financial mess, this would either secure Geitner as a great choice or put him on the fast track to join the millions of unemployed!

(D) Like the UK, sometimes the PM cant make it, so why not Pelosi, Reid, or even >gulp< Biden to make interim question times?

+++

Kudos to Obama, and I think anyone from any party, who believe transparency and accountability is important for our nation and its political system to begin to heal and repair itself, would have to agree!

Strategy, Tactics, and Terrorism

I will make this brief.

The idea that we can stop terrorists who seem to be coming in via London, Amsterdam, or other foreign ports into America to set off havoc (and bombs) by essentially removing civil liberties here at home beggars belief.

A phrase that would have been heresy just several years ago, but is now on the TV-machine a lot is "security theater."

Now in my mind this would be the staging area for a secure zone, but in fact means staging an act which is designed to lend the appearance of greater safety.

We still haven't completely implemented the work of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Republicans continue to play petty politics by not conferring a TSA Chief, and meanwhile New safety measures appear arbitrary... I mean here.

The simple Strategical guidance I would offer is simple: We must shift from a Reactionary Defense to a Proactive Defense; We must shift from a Nation-State Invasion Model to a Sectarian Counter-terror Model.

Easier said than done!

That said, Proactive Defense looks more like what the British accomplished in 2005 with the liquid bombers; or the French have been dealing with since Algerian Independence in 1962. A lot of very advanced police work!

Our current reactionary basis has us looking at areas where the opponents last struck. As they say in investing, "past performance does not guarantee future results." This is backwards hindsight mentality.

The balance is to get international cooperation on improved intelligence techniques that somehow maintains reasonable personal privacy and functional civil liberties.

As for our wholesale invasion of places where terrorists live, well that is as delusional as the idea that Terrorists will somehow destroy the Freedom we enjoy in the West.

Our freedoms, our wealth, and our model of social change is not something that people plan on giving up on, and like any good product or service-- it is in high demand!

Ours is not a natural state of governance, but a logical outcrop as a result from hard earned lessons and wars of the past. Ours is the best model, for now, and people basically like Freedom, Liberty and Justice. So the terrorists can't expect random acts of havoc to remove or somehow dethrone this truth.

On the other hand there are dissenters and at the harshest end bad actors, those who would commit terrorist acts, probably in any major nation-state in the world. It becomes a question of what is aspirational and what is operational as to what threats are indeed real to human safety and liberty.

So, to invade yet another country to ensure freedom and democracy is so 20th century, and a very proven failed idea from not just a budgetary, but a benefit-cost, point of view.

Like NASA, our defense and offense needs to get more focused, accurate, and scale appropriate to live within their means.

The Politics of Cynicism and Pretzel Logic: Part I Sarah Palin

Well it's no surprise that eight years after the tragedy of the nineleven we still see politicians like this:







The saddest bit is that we have many cynical fallacies to review today, but I am only going to dwell on two of them.



PART ONE SARAH PALIN


1. Death Panels. Just like Lois Griffin's stunning statement, "9... (beat) 11," there isn't some great piece of logic to examine beyond say an eight year old listening to a popular music song and misreading the lyrics (as I often have done my whole life [I thought Peter Gabriel released a song called "I Have the Tush," until my sister and her friend almost laughed me out [it was "I Have the Touch," BTW] of the car when I was twelve or so).


The actual entity is called "End of Life Counseling." A Council is a group of people... a panel. Another word for end of life is "Death." Death Panel!


It's cynical, zingy, and very school yard. Not to mention is entirely misleading, because the chasm between Counseling, and so to speak "Counciling," is very different. And now we get to the fallacy: You can have a Council that Counsels, but less often would you have a Counselor who Councils. Unless of course by Counselor we are using the term associated with a lawyer with whom we rely upon.


This is 'because A can be B, then B is A." And I feel this is charitable, because in reality this is just a cynical Appeal to Fear.



2. Obama mentioned in his speech that the costs of (a) the last eight years of war, and (b) the last eight years of tax cuts equal less than his proposed health care plan of $900BB over ten years.


Cost of the wars in the last eight years (see side calculator, too) is about right, and definiately on track that over ten years shall exceed the $900BB figure!


Cost of the tax cuts is easily correct at something like 200 ~ 250% of that value.


Which brings us to the fallacy. Mrs. Palin suggests that President Obama has disrespected the troops, because he made this assertion (of fact-- or at least accurate and open budget estimation [we are assuming the health care plan =$900BB over ten years]).


Health Care fix will cost less than the Wars. Health care is baaaad. Therefore Obama says Troops are bad!


She is missing some circuitry, but somehow has that magical cavewoman's reptilian mentality in tact (albeit getting her speaking points ostensibly from some Rovian Sith up and comer one would suspect [my cynicism]).


*sigh* here we go: (a) Obama says his plan is good, (b) Obama is not liked (by the arguer), (c) Obama does not like the war, (d) Republicans (theoretically) support the fallacious war in Iraq [still?], (e) the tone of the speech did contain an allusion to the fact that the war was fallacious, (f) War requires troops, and therefore (g) Obama said troops are "Baaaad!"


This is going to get pretty tricky (all from the POV of the arguement in Favor of Obama said Troops is Baaaad): NOT a is TRUE; b is TRUE; c is TRUE; d is TRUE; e is TRUE; f is TRUE; thus g. So do you see what happened yet?


By starting the element with one negative our result contains a negative assertion. For example: -a * b * c * d * e * f = g and g is a negative number!


Now to the actual contents of the argument: a is opinon, b is opinon, c is opinion, d is a position, e is an opinon, f is a statement of fact, and g is a fallacy!


Remove the opinions, and you get: position, statement, and fallacy. Or, "The Iraq War and the other Bush Wars are important, necessary and good; War requires troops; and Obama does not support the troops!"


Finally we come to the illicit process (inclusive of the negative assumption {tu quoque reversed- which is to say "you too," except the opposite version "not me"}): YOU think NOT The Iraq War and the other Bush Wars are important, necessary and good; War requires troops; therefore YOU think troops NOT good!


Disgusted yet? We didn't finish. (The Ad hominem implied, that is to say the NOT me BUT you think, is indicated by the asterisk *) Now that we have simplified the statement and the logics, lets find the fallacy within the fallacy (the first being a tu quoque reversed premissed upon opinions and assertions): (p) War requires (q) Troops, *YOU think (p) = NOT good (r), therefore *YOU think (q) = NOT good (r)!


This is called an illicit major. There is a failure to distribute. P = Q; P = NOT R; Therefore Q = NOT R.


Although I think it is somewhat accurate to characterize Obama Administration as being instinctively against War, in fact they have shown to be pragmatic and we are looking at increasing troop levels in Afganistan. So aside from this ILLICIT MAJOR inside the AD HOMINEM (that is to say against the person not the argument) which I am calling the REVERSED TU QUOQUE, we actually have the addition of a misrepresentation to the practical facts of what the opposite side has effectively done and implemented to add the STRAW MAN (misrepresentation of the position being argued against).


Those Rovian Siths love a good fallacy within a fallacy within a fallacy! First they miscomprehendate (to anticipate what Dubya might have called it) the speaker and then they fallacy the fallacy!



I am going to try to now enjoy the rest of my day, but I just had to point out how bloody rediculous it is that the media even covers such poor argumentation in the first place... unfortunately I think there is much more to come, so I put this as PART ONE!

Another Moment in Time

At the end of the film by John Cromwell, entitled Abe Lincoln in Illinois, Raymond Massey, whose portrayal of Lincoln is considered one of the most accurate by people who had actually seen the man himself, quotes the truism sought by the Asian Emperor to apply to all things at all occasions, and he somberly looks into the camera and says, "And this too shall pass."

That scene portrayed outside (a set of the) same Illinois State house that I watched (as did many other political junkies) President-elect begin his improbable campaign, resonates as a comparable historical moment in time. And much like that relatively less than recorded moment in time (meaning fewer digital devices, and fewer people, surely) my age and wisdom informs me that like all else, as remarkable as this evening and the symbology of what it signifies and represents to not just American people, or for that matter those American people who are descendant from the slaves who toiled to build our nascent nation, "this too shall pass."

Obama is just a man; he is a lawyer; he is a politician; he is a Democrat; and he has even admitted he's not perfect.

That said, I am either so absolutely revolted by the current administration's policies, lack of competency, and our failed economic Trickle Down Theories, or I am actually still young enough of a man to permit myself to believe that the American people may have selected enough of a scholar, diplomat, and leader that they are willing to actually work very hard for in order to pull our collective American assess out from the fire without landing into the frying pan to say, "but its nice to have seen and been with."

(I know its poor form to end on a preposition, but I actually enjoy imagining my English teachers spinning in their beds, graves, or crypts from which they roust in order to suckle the blood from English students-- that said I will be offering some scathing commentary on our Economic mess in the near future.)

The King is Dead, God Save the King!

(P.S. I tried finding the exact scene from the movie, but alas, only found a 1940's Hollywood Martial Arts display)

Washington's Arguments for the Disestablishment of Parties

Keith Olberman, that modern minstrel and scholar, recently chastised Obama for his alacrity in supporting FISA, or Federally condoned, and probably illegal, definitely limiting our Liberties, spying program.

His main point was that as it goes he can support the bill and claim to champion civil rights by having his new AG sue the participants under criminal (as opposed to civil) law. It was a political move by Obama not to upstage the current Congress and their sausage making progress, but for civil libertarians a bit of a let down all the same.

In that monologue, he substantiated one of his points by referring to our late great President Washington’s last speech in office, and specifically referred to the warning contained therein AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARTIES.

I was pleased to be reminded of this speech, and was reminded why I am neither Tweedle-DEM or Tweedle-PUB! I would like to use this opportunity to expand on the definitions of WHAT MAKES THE RATTLESNAKE PARTY? and UNIVERSAL FACTION….

A thing to note is the intelligence and force of intelligence the speaker gives his argument and the depths he goes into at an almost philosophical level.

On the other hand, one can imagine that it would defy the conventions of that day on December 23, 1783 to have reporters digging literally asking the highest office questions like “boxers or briefs?” The audience was probably more respectful, rapt, and had a better tendency towards paying attention for long periods of time to people speaking (as that was effectively the entertainment of the day—reading books aloud, singing songs, theatre, etc.).

Finally a piece of context no doubt understood but not fully explained in the Olberman diatribe: Had Washington not resigned, not given the speech, not thought of the greater good, he could have ruled indefinitely and reverted to monarchical and/or what we term now fascistic governance.

Therefore, these words are to be considered metaphorically as if Moses himself came down from the mount, because no President since, and God willing none ever after, shall have such unanimous popularity and source of absolute power, in any one moment of time within the Great American Experiment.

I will be quoting from excerpts from that fine speech, fulltext, making brief commentary, and these concepts tie in the Rattlesnake Party.


§13. “Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”

Think to Eisenhower’s admonition of the Military Industrial Complex! Further extrapolate that the concept of Party, and thereby any assembly, that would rely upon overburdened force, threat or destruction are thence to be treated in the social concept of Liberty as a direct and personal threat, and a collective threat to the state of Union between States.


§15. “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.”

True libertarians therefore seek fraternity before identity, and through intellect, reason, and fair persuasion gain consensus amongst people and therefore groups of people. Party only serves to dismiss such persuasion before it can be heard, discoursed, or counter-argued.


§17. “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”

If ever prescient words were ever spoken, here we find ourselves today in exactly the predicament foreseen by the Great General.

In plain English:

1. When the process of creating laws are obstructed unjustly by any organization in ways designed to control that process of reason and deliberation, then the principal of law itself is undermined, probably fatally.
2. Any organization that would use unjust means for false purposes, will tend to put in place their voice rather than the voice of the people and their elected officials, even though they may be only an artful and enterprising minority, and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Although Washington’s last phrase isn’t exactly Plain English, it is truly what we have witnessed in Congress for far too long! I had to leave that phrase in tact.


§22. “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

Washington here refers to the Politics from which the Great American Experiment was born, and from whence he and our founders prayed we would never return to. This expands and reflects the description above in §17, and how foul have we gone to have the very situation in our modern Congress as the first step in this four-step recipe of Washington’s observations as to the origins of despotism and the nature of fascism?


§25. “There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.”

Although not as alarming as some of the other thoughts, warnings, and premonitions. This is a very clear statement that Party Politics is not suitable to true Democracy in a Republic of States.


RATTLESNAKE

Let us be vigilant to these truths observed long ago by the man who went from defeat at New York to this sublime and greatest triumph for Liberty, that of relinquishment of power in the name of a greater cause.

Rattlesnake is not a “party,” but to make simple the thought of what we are attempting to influence we must be within the convention of any reader’s eyes and ears convenient. Rattlesnake is a Universal Faction, which believes all lawful and legal Americans are our brothers and sisters in arms.

And although one may argue this is the plain definition of American, we do believe that until the course of law is witnessed there are amongst our law abiding brethren an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.

These people and groups are not party to our cause, and until such time as the “fatal tendency” of such persons are diminished, we would call ourselves a “party.”

Once that cause is realized, then the concept of Universal Faction becomes clearer: There would be no “win-lose” paradigm; Rattlesnake no longer need be a “party,” rather another part of the Universal Faction; and thereby the interest of the people would be better served.

Universal Faction is a subset of the greater liberty and freedom by which we define ourselves as Americans.

There is no Membership Card. You pay no fees or dues. This is true liberty.

You either believe or you don’t.

May we all be blessed upon this the 232nd anniversary of our Independence!

On the Constitution

This is a complex subject, so I will defer to an excellent piece of new scholarship to set the tone to the latest and greatest technology in understanding the constitution, and how both sides of the "abortion debate," are both technically right, but that whichever view eventually prevails (with full acknowledgment that statutes on the books state a woman has a right to choose) both sides have a right to be heard, as per the 1st Amendment.

"Abortion and Original Meaning

JACK M. BALKIN
Yale University - Law School

Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 128
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 24, No. 101, 2007


Abstract:
This article argues that the debate between originalism and living constitutionalism offers a false dichotomy. Many originalists and their critics improperly conflate fidelity to the original meaning of the constitutional text with fidelity to how people living at the time of adoption expected that it would be applied. That is, they confuse original meaning with original expected application.

Constitutional interpretation requires fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution and to the principles that underlie the text, but not to original expected application. This general approach to constitutional interpretation is the method of text and principle. This approach is faithful to the original meaning of the constitutional text, and to its underlying purposes. It is also consistent with the idea of a basic law that leaves to each generation the task of how to make sense of the Constitution's words and principles in their own time. Although the constitutional text and principles do not change without subsequent amendment, their application and implementation can. That is the best way to understand the interpretive practices characteristic of our constitutional tradition and the work of the many political and social movements that have transformed our understandings of the Constitution's guarantees. It explains, as other versions of originalism cannot, why these transformations are not simply mistakes that we must grudgingly accept out of respect for settled precedent, but are significant achievements of our constitutional tradition.

The article applies this method to the most contentious constitutional issue of our generation - the constitutional right to abortion. It concludes, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the constitutional right to abortion is consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in particular, its prohibition on class legislation that is embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.

The article criticizes Roe v. Wade's original trimester system, arguing that there are actually two rights to abortion instead of one. Finally, it explains how courts might have better implemented the constitutional guarantee of the two rights to abortion in ways that are more respectful of democratic politics.

[This article will appear in 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007). A response to critics, expanding on the some of the key ideas of the article, appears in Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption, 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987060]"

Read the full text and see how he demonstrates how such bastions of the Right, as Scalia, are admitted "faint-hearted originalist," working from a theory that is flawed.

In other words, like all aspects of human society, we believe judges, as humans, must make a full attempt to interpret the constitution yet stay within their part of the balance of powers using the best Technology available to them, in order to ADHERE TO THE PRIME CONCEPTS ENSHRINED IN OUR BUNDLE OF RIGHTS AND THE BALANCES OF POWERS.

For those who would use the Constitution to outlaw Abortion or Homosexuality, we STRONGLY DISAGREE that this is the equation of human liberty set in motion by our founders.

Unfortunately, for those of us who may indeed believe that if it was our own physical womb which was holding a fertilized ovum that we would personally protect and defend that little critter with our life, it is clear that that homunculus doesn't pass the 5th Amendment or other tests of personage enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, for instance, as Balkin states, "It is hard to see how a fetus could be compelled to testify against anyone, much less against itself."

Scientific reason thus permits us to simultaneously imagine that the fetus may indeed be very valuable to society, the family it will be born into, etc., and yet comprehend why the fetus doesn't have (for instance) Miranda, or any other Rights. It is the mother who would be robbing a bank, be arrested, and required to be Mirandized (another example).

The brilliance of this argument isn't so much that we "love" abortions, in fact we would hope prudence and civil progress would create access to contraception, prevention, and abstinence using a scientific and reasonable basis. Further, that we believe Education (not just sex education, but science, math, sports, etc.) is one of the best contraceptives available.

No, the brilliance of this argument is that all the judges whose words are "final," at least until someone more brilliant, or a situation more enlightening occurs, are only human and thus limited by the technology of the day. That is why our "framers" developed a Constitution which contains an organized intrapreneurial methodology for the social revolts they knew, scientifically, were a regular part of human government.

Could you imagine if all our damn lawyers would focus their energy on constructive progression of the Science of Law, instead of frivolous lawsuits?

We are neither "originalist," nor "constitutionalists," rather we seek reason and wisdom which protects the principals of established constitutional and case law. We believe Congress or the Executive must be restrained from burdening the people and the Judiciary is that protection in the Balance of Powers. We believe in the enshrinement of our bundle of rights, and finally that all these laws and rights must be translated into plain English for common reference and daily use-- otherwise, at the rate we are going, we will end up a nation of lawyers.

Rule of Law, not mere fascism...

If we consider the source of law in America, first we have the Judeo-Christian moral code which is premised upon the ten commandments.

By the time of the American Revolution, there was a clear Protestant view on the interpretation of these rules. One of the clearest comments as to why America exists is both Freedom OF and Freedom FROM Religion.

Although we believe everyone has a right to practice their own philosophy and religion within the context of common law, the need to impose an interpretation upon others is left for the courts.

To take an example, "This is not a Christian Nation in the strictest sense because it is not a crime to worship idols." Of this we are thankful for the wisdom of the founders, not so much because we insist on idolatry, rather that certain laws outlive their usefulness within the context of modern science, reason, and humanity.

Homosexuality is a real hot button issue. It is an good example of how science has informed us that by default something like 1 ~ 15% of all human have that innate psychology to be able to function as or ONLY function as such. So our human laws (in the past, wherein such practice was literally illegal) attempted to take precedence over natural laws.

A final Example, lets say the city council made it against the law for dogs to crap. Well, this is unreasonable by definition, because anyone who owns or has owned (or even has much of a brain in their head) can tell you that this is one of the important functions in the domestic arrangement between human and canine... they poop, and we pick it up (ideally).

So this hypothetical City Council might have more of a point in outlawing dogs from public streets and parks, imposing a fine for anyone walking a dog not picking up after the animal, or improving funding for their animal control department-- depending on what net effect they are attempting to have. Of course should they choose to impose all three one might argue this hypothetical Council has become Fascist, but more than argue it is the Responsibility of those citizens who disagree to then use the mechanism of Democracy and Government to reverse such laws.

And so government is a collective of human beings limited by their own knowledge, perspective, and abilities to attempt to effect change. Government makes laws, which are interpreted by courts. Eventually laws need to be improved to refine the result sought, modified to protect citizens bundle of rights, or even removed for being untenable.

Our founders understood this, and created a republic of States. Each State was a virtual country which belonged to a larger collective (until the Union was formed after the Civil War). The principles still remain, and each City, County, and State governance mechanism is a "laboratory of democracy."

You could only envision this in an Age of Reason.

A modern example of the cutting edge of the Rule of Law is California. Now I qualify by saying that not all is well in California Uber Alles, but our government is moving where the current USA administration and Congress has failed to adjust accordingly-- for instance in the fight against global warming.

Now that we have firmly established that law is not a fixed point, rather a moving target, which evolves like our thoughts, and bodies, over time, let us attempt to ascribe how we apply the law and live by it.

A further genius of our founders was to establish a Constitution. I could begin about the Magna Carta, or how the Founders used the example of the Ten Commandments which became adorned with hundreds of other more mutable laws thereafter by the Jews, rather I would like to take a more physical view.

The body and its functions were slowly being uncovered (along with things like physical science) back towards the end of the 18th century, and likewise the concept of "Constitution," or constituent parts is a great piece of genius in law.

We now know that the human body replaces EVERY cell something like every 12 to 180 days depending on the tissue type. This is really amazing and weird in and of itself, but thats not the point. There is always a liver, a heart, lungs, etc, and they're always more or less in the same place doing the same things-- otherwise that body dies.

So it is with our Rights and Responsibilities (chief amongst these is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-- although that is in the Declaration) that no matter what "cells" (Laws) are in place to assist the function of the "constitutional organs," it is the function which is most vital.

Therefore the role of law is to be clear, relevant, and applicable to the society which that law intends to govern.

In our case, the Founders added the role that all laws must be subset to our Bundle of Rights, and have put the functions of organized revolution (elections, balance of power, bill of rights) to ensure protection of these inalienable rights with which all American Humans are born.