Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Declaration for American Liberty Congress



UPDATE Sunday 6/17: Do we enhance our statement by adding at the end (after "...happiness...") And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Let's get this wrapped up today, folks. I want to order my supplies and start collecting signatures.

~~

UPDATE Tuesday: A Comment was left asking about an "Or else..." clause/statement. We originally discussed such language, and I think we have all generally evolved to "Less is more" for our language. Trainer offered what I consider to be perfect reasoning as to why we do not need to incorporate an "Or else..." statement, and I offer it here. Trainer, sorry I didn't ask your permission before posting it here, I hope you don't mind.

Trainer: The consequence is inferred by the recipients of the declaration.

The phrase, "Restore the Constitution," itself is an imperative; a command, requiring compliance. In this case, the command comes from the citizenry, the masters of the government, according to all the founding principles, documents, and evidence available.

Logic dictates that a command issued, if disregarded, answered inappropriately, or ignored, brings about the situation of the application of a consequence.

Let them figure out the consequence, which will already be implied by the "This is the last time I come unarmed" shirts....


~

I'll simply add: ...and our empty holsters.

K

UPDATE: Folks, are we leaning toward something like the above: We the People hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Restore the Constitution

With signatures beneath?

~~

OK, folks - it is time to seriously discuss and then pull the trigger on the verbiage of the Declaration we sign and present on November 3 at the American Liberty Congress in DC.

I want this project to be as "Big Tent" as possible. It is not merely a III project, though I will certainly count it as a feather in the III cap once it is done. I want to find and involve "real" Tea Party folks. I want NRA folks aboard. I even want to infiltrate the message (Restore the Constitution) into the collective consciousness of those folks who intend to vote for Mittens. Those of us who make it to the steps of the Capitol will be the steel in the spine for the rest of them.

We will be John Parker.

Here is my plan: I will travel this summer and early fall collecting signatures on our Declaration. The Declaration will be in a scroll format to allow as many signatures as possible on a single format. (For folks who want to sign, but are unable to get to the scroll or be in DC in November, we will be using snail mail to circulate paper petitions/Declarations to be added to the package we hand over to our Congressional rep.)

The question: What is the wording for the Declaration?

I have a few points on which I am not willing to yield: First, I will not call for a "new" government, government disbandment, or anything such. The demand will be that elected officials and bureaucrats once again respect their oaths and the parameters of the Constitution, including the BoR and that they respect the intent of the DoI.

We can add "...as ratified..." or "...as amended..." if you wish, or we can leave it open ended so folks don't get bogged down in parsing and counting angels on the head of a pin. I have no problem inserting language that calls current Political Class members as Traitors and/or Enemies of Liberty.

Personally, I think if we get anywhere back to "Respect for the Constitution" we will recapture so much personal Liberty that 99% of the folks in "The Liberty Community" will be happy, even if they hate the Constitution. We can worry about the next step once we have accomplished this step.

I am 99% convinced that the simple phrase "Restore the Constitution" should be the call. It is simple. It is a reference point with which most Americans are familiar (even if they have no clue what it says or means) and it is the source of legitimacy for the Enemies of Liberty - When they claim the Right/Power/Authority to do a bad thing, they refer to the Constitution as their legitimate source - we need to wrestle that back.

I think a simple, bold script of something like: We the People, witnessed by our signatures below and written in our own hand, do demand that every elected official, appointed official and bureaucrat at every level of Government in America, immediately respect the original intent of our Founders and Framers, the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the clear parameters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Now, I whipped that preceeding verbiage out in about 60 seconds. It can be wordsmithed down to a smaller statement. It can be trash-canned.

Or, do you you prefer we take a different direction? Should I see if we can actually have the DoI, Constitution & BoR written as the lede, accented with "Restore the Constitution", then followed by signatures?

Or, would you prefer we use the DoI as a template and replace mentions of the King and the King's violations with our own long train of abuses, followed by signatures?

Or, back to my "simple is better" permise: As a War Cry it is damned hard to beat a very simple title: "Restore the Constitution". We can go simple, or we can go detailed. Just remember our audience - the vast majority of those we will be asking to sign are sound-bite Americans, unsophisticated as to the actual words and extent of the Founding Documents and the intent of the Founders & Framers.

Leaders lead from the front. Leaders do. Walk with me and we will all be Leaders who guide our Countrymen back to Liberty.

Weigh-in folks, please.

Kerodin
III

28 comments:

  1. Somewhere within the context of the statement, the preamble of the DoL must be seen, whether condensed or in full, "by their creator" is paramount.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mozart: Noted, and agreed.

      K

      Delete
    2. Mr. K, I agree with Mr. Mozart. Add his suggestion to YOUR suggested declaration. No More, No Less.

      K.I.S.S.

      DAN III
      Pennsylvania

      Delete
  2. I agree "Restore the Constitution". Simple is better. I would prefer as ratified but would take at this point as amended.

    Chad Miller

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to agree, "As Amended" is part of what our problem is now IE the 14th, the 16th etc. "As Ratified" is even a point of contention among many as the "ratification" has been debated to death in other circles. Run with Restoration and the details can still be worked out later.
    While wish for there to be more 'teeth' in the constitution, I know that all can be worked out in future endeavors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Keep it simple stupid". I'd go with the "restore", and skip the "as" bits. Too much room for petty bickering. I like Mozart's suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Restore the Constitution! Short and simple. As it was intended for common folks.No lawyerese 2000 words when 20 would suffice! Those who want to fight out the details,please do it after We get people rallied with us,and Politicians put on notice. Fighting amongst ourselves over minutiae is not gonna help!

    China
    III

    ReplyDelete
  6. The frog is mush, the frat boys still intend on cutting away at a pile of frog mush.

    Prepping and local, local, local. Don't let anyone tell you the preps should be completed.

    Bill Nye

    ReplyDelete
  7. FWIW, I'll vote for Restore the Constitution; go for short and sweet over longer. If and when someone asks, it's OK to go deeper.

    And I'll tell you the first fight you'll have. It's embedded in a cartoon here (sorry for the self link - it's the only way I know how to get to that cartoon). Somebody is going to say you want to go back to slavery. If they know anything about the history, they won't go there - so you know you're debating with someone who isn't thinking. You'll have to explain how that whole "3/5 of a person" thing was intended as a poison pill to end slavery.

    They have been trained by the media and administration for years that anyone who thinks this way is a racist/terrorist. Overcoming that is half the battle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Restore the Constitution.
    Miss Violet

    ReplyDelete
  9. Simple is best - in spite of my penchant for verbal diarrhea ;-)

    Restore the Constitution

    ReplyDelete
  10. so you know you're debating with someone who isn't thinking.

    Yes, the South wanted slaves counted as a whole. It was the North that forced the 3/5ths rule.

    "Restore the Constitution"

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Restore the Constitution"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Where is the pen for which to sign with?

    Oh wait, there must be some amongst us that will find offense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The updated text, with, "Restore the Constitution!" works very well.

    Short, sweet, and to the point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There needs to be a statement saying that there will be consequences if the Constitution is not restored. If not its just a waste of paper. It sounded like that was going to happen when you first mentioned it. I supported that. If that is all it is going to say then this is all a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon: Give me a bit of language that works for you.

      K

      Delete
  15. RE: Anon 11:45AM's sentiment.

    The consequence is inferred by the recipients of the declaration.

    The phrase, "Restore the Constitution," itself is an imperative; a command, requiring compliance. In this case, the command comes from the citizenry, the masters of the government, according to all the founding principles, documents, and evidence available.

    Logic dictates that a command issued, if disregarded, answered inappropriately, or ignored, brings about the situation of the application of a consequence.

    Let them figure out the consequence, which will already be implied by the "This is the last time I come unarmed" shirts....

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would suggest adding something like Restore the Constitution or we will restore it ourselves.

    Logic is not something our politicians use. Do not count on them to infer anything. Spell it out so that there can be no question about our intentions. That will be sure to extra emphasize our point to them and I feel it would be a cause for extra media attention. I think at this point in the game all media attention is good media attention. To get the word out to fellow patriots that they are not alone.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I realize I'm entering this thread late, but ...

    Would you consider removing some of the Founders' ambiguity and state the Declaration in terms of John Locke's original rights of man?

    "life, liberty, and property" (rather than "pursuit of happiness")

    Restore 'allodial title' to property as part of the refounding.

    (Wiki: allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land from holding by feudal tenure)

    Hans
    in the NC woods

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was thinking about property in addition to "pursuit of happiness" first but the more I think about it, I suggest property should be restored since its initial replacement dealt with slavery. Since this is not an issue today (at least overtly), the security of our property should be a priority.

    Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the removal of a Supreme Court justice and term limits should be open for discussion.

    The preamble should be qualified as outlined in the Federalist Papers to remove the current misconceptions in Congress

    ReplyDelete
  19. Remember the science of "Audience Analysis." This is not to any intellectual giants; rather, it's being sent to constitutionally illiterate 'representatives', right?

    Let's "Keep It Simple".....the way it is now is clear, concise, to the point, and lets their minds run riot....

    Simple is powerful.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have refrained from commenting because I believe that observing allows me to better inform my tribe. However on this one point I feel compelled to chime in. (I also believe, the Militia as a whole should remain impartial and objective concerning the debates within the "Movement")

    Better late than never in this case, WE (my unit) strongly support the removal of the ambiguous "pursuit of happiness" phrase and it's replacement with the original "Property".

    Our reasons are our own, but should be obvious in nature since the abuse of eminent domain and confiscatory laws are endemic in our current broken justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have refrained from commenting because I believe that observing allows me to better inform my tribe. However on this one point I feel compelled to chime in. (I also believe, the Militia as a whole should remain impartial and objective concerning the debates within the "Movement")

    Better late than never in this case, WE (my unit) strongly support the removal of the ambiguous "pursuit of happiness" phrase and it's replacement with the original "Property".

    Our reasons are our own, but should be obvious in nature since the abuse of eminent domain and confiscatory laws are endemic in our current broken justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Everything is in order. I'll add my signature. Where do I sign?
    Papa Mike
    III

    ReplyDelete
  23. Restore the Constitution is an absolute must. Changing "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to "life, liberty, and private property", I like. I think it sends the right message.

    CDP

    ReplyDelete
  24. If they do not remember this phrase nothing you write now will matter.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    ReplyDelete

Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.