The Freeman State

What's wrong with the U.S. Constitution?

The short answer is - a lot!  If you want a crash course, trying Googling "scumbag Constitution meme."  :)

A much more in-depth answer would require a great deal of knowledge about history, law, politics, economics, philosophy, and current events, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the Constitution of the United States and The Freeman Constitution.

Suffice to say, it would behoove you to read carefully through both documents and to see for yourself if you think there are things that are wrong with it and why we opted to change certain things.  Just the mere act of reading them should inform you that something is terribly wrong with the United States.

(And if you're Canadian, then read through the Constitution Act, as well as the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the Interpretation Act for similar thought exercise.)

What's a preamble and why is it necessary?

A preamble is a short, plain-language explanation of the intent of a legal document.  It's there to help interpret what the writers of that document meant and why they established certain provisions in the first place.

There is a theory that any law code without such a preamle cannot be considered real law as its intent cannot be determined.  Whether that's true or not, it's certainly a good practice to include one.

What if I don't like something that's written in the Freeman Constitution?

The Freeman Constitution is still very much a work in progress.  It's not official in any way, and so it's open to receive input and may change over time.  It might even change considerably depending on the participation of people interested in involving themselves in this process.  We certainly welcome and encourage your active participation in making it the very best that it can be.

If you've ever had designs towards changing the constitution (of your country), this would be the time to do it.  Once an independent state is made and the Constitution (ours) is adopted, it will be harder to change and the provisions could ultimately enable or prevent the formation of a totalitarian State in the future.  So choose carefully!

What would be most helpful to us in preventing that from happening would be for you to think and act like a super-statist lawyer and try to actively twist and manipulate the provisions that are written as best you can to try and justify radical abuses of power.  This will help us find flaws and eliminate them.  :)

We would rather you try and break it now, in its prototype stage, than to wait for the government to form bad precedents.  That's how Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Bush, Obama, and many of the other Presidents of the United States, and the Congresses and Courts that served along with them, were able to consolidate such power is through color of law and because the people didn't know enough about the law to see through their agenda and their propaganda!

If even America fell to tyranny, what makes you think this time will be different?

We make no claims that this is a permanent solution to last a thousand years; only that it's better than what's currently going on in America right now. 

Without a vigilant people who know and understand the law and hold their governments to it; who know, understand, and take active interest in history, philosophy, economics, and politics, there's really nothing to stop a few corrupt interests from infiltrating the government and doing all this again and worse!  But our hope is that at least part of the problem can be fixed by instituting a few new rules and writing them in a way that is clearer to the people.

We feel that a large part of the failure of America is that the wording of the Constitution has many holes in it that have been exploited (regulating commerce, public welfare, declaration of war, well-regulated militia, unapportioned taxes, etc.); and that because so many people are unclear about these sorts of issues, they have allowed politicians to twist them away from the original founding principles and to deprive the people of their property, their liberty, and even their lives in some cases.

Divide and conquer!  Well, Americans have been divided on issues that should be obvious and unifying and thus they have been conquered.

How do we know whether this new government will fall to tyranny?

In general, there are three main things that have caused the collapse of all Republics throughout history: excessive welfare, excessive warfare, and excessive regulation.

These three things are all linked, and as soon as one begins to take hold, it's not long before the other two follow until you get people voting for tons of handouts and subsidies, high taxes and civil forfeitures to pay for those handouts, and an overbearing police power to enforce their payment.

Such a state is not sustainable by the laws of mathematics and the scientific principle of Conservation of Energy (money is a form of commercial energy).  If ever a Republic becomes twisted by propaganda to start down this road, it won't be long before it devolves into an empire; and then from there the empire will eventually collapse for the same reason until the country is thrown into a Dark Age of poverty, famine, and disease.

If you wish to know whether a given politician is a tyrant, look to their particular policies and see how their actions (not their words) indicate their tendency towards greater welfare, warfare, or regulation.  A free society should naturally tend away from such things towards individual liberty.  In that, government is only a crutch to help get them there and keep them there.

"That government which governs best governs least."

The United States government can be called many things, but "small" is not one of them, unless you wish to call it a "small empire."  It is currently in the last throws of Republicanism, just as Rome was.

If we want to avoid tyranny, we should teach our children in every school and household to avoid the three demons of welfare, warfare, and excessive regulation; and to always have a healthy mistrust for the government - to be forever wary that, like fire, it would consume everything in its path if it could, being stopped only by the laws of Nature itself.

Why is your election process so complicated?

The electoral system created by The Freeman State is a hybrid of several different systems including the Alternative Vote and Mixed-Member Proportional systems.  It is designed in such a way as to be more indicative of actual voter preferences than the current First Pass the Post system as used in many democratic nations.

While the behind the scenes vote counting may be more complex, from a voter standpoint, it's actually quite simple.  All you have to do is rank your preferred candidates in order from most-favored to least-favored and then pick the political party that you feel best represents your own political ideology.  If your first choice doesn't receive enough votes to win and there is no majority winner, your second-choice vote will be applied and so on until a candidate in your district gets enough votes to win a majority.

From a party perspective, all you have to do is list your candidates in order from most-favored to least-favored (before the election).  If enough people vote for your party, you receive more seats in the Senate and you can fill them with your more-favored candidates.

Isn't "one person, one vote, majority wins" the most fair system?

It may seem the most intuitive method, but in practice it's actually not very fair at all.  To understand why, check out this video.

How is your electoral system better?

Our system attempts to combine the benefits of the Alternative Vote and Mixed Member Proportional voting systems to eliminate the Spoiler Effect and give more proportional representation.  This helps smaller third parties compete so that you don't wind up with only two parties of moderates who only represent a minority of voters.

By dividing the State up into voting districts using the Shortest Splitline Method and making the process public knowledge, this also helps prevent gerrymandering.

If you're not familiar with these methods, check out the previous links. 

Our hope is that this system will make voters feel more in control of the political system, since their votes will actually count for something and people can vote for the candidates they like the most instead of having to vote strategically against the candidate they like the least.  Because of the increased presence of third parties in office, the political landscape will look much different than it does today.  Instead of Republicans and Democrats, you might also have Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and so forth thrown in as well, which will certainly change what sort of policies get enacted.  With the people holding more real power over the government, the odds of devolving into tyranny are greatly reduced.

So far, this is the best we've been able to come up with, but if you think of any ways to further improve upon this system, we're all ears.

Aren't political parties bad?

The Founding Fathers may have warned about the dangers of political parties, but we've had them for almost the entirety of American history.  John Adams, the second president, was a member of the Federalist Party (which was nothing of the sort, but that's besides the point) and Thomas Jefferson, the second vice-president, was a member of the Anti-Federalist Party (again, nothing of the sort), later the Democratic-Republicans.

There are good reasons to oppose political parties, since it involves voting for groups rather than individuals; but our feeling is that if there are going to be political parties anyway, we may as well account for that fact.  The electoral system we've come up with allows for the voting of individuals as well as political parties; and, to the extent that people's political values align with those of a particular party, that is how they will be represented in the Senate. 

This is far better than the current system where, say, Libertarians are the third-largest political party but have almost no seats in office as they are held almost exclusively by Democrats and Republicans.  Under our system, which incorporates aspects of the Mixed-Member Proportional system, if enough people vote for a particular party, that party will receive roughly a proportional amount of seats in the Senate.

For the seats of President and Vice-President, parties don't actually matter as much, since you're still voting for individuals.

Why don't the President and the Vice-President run on the same ticket?

The Founding Fathers established that whoever got the most votes for the office of President would be the President and whoever got the second-most would be Vice-President.  We feel that this was actually a good system, since under the First Pass the Post system of voting, the President and Vice-President would likely be of opposing viewpoints and so this would help make the Executive Branch more bipartisan and provide additional checks on executive power. 

Just imagine, for instance, if Barrack Obama was forced to work with John McCain instead of Joe Biden, or if George Bush was forced to work with Al Gore instead of Dick Cheney.  I can't say with certainty that things would be better, but they would certainly be a lot different.

Given that the President and Vice-President were probably of opposing views under this system, the Executive Branch as a whole was a better representation of the population than the current system of electing President and Vice-President from the same party.  In our system, where we use the Alternative Vote, it is even more likely that the President / Vice-President pairing will represent a majority of the population since you also have the benefit of ranking your preferred candidates.

So say for instance you are a Republican and you really like Ron Paul, but you don't think he stands a chance of winning, so you vote strategically for George Bush because you really don't like John Kerry.  Under the current system, you might wind up with Bush-Cheney, which maybe you really like but many Americans don't, because they voted for someone else.  Under the Founders' system, you might wind up with Bush-Kerry, which you personally might not like as much as Bush-Cheney, but overall seems a better compromise for America since at least more people have someone in office they tend to side with. 

Under our system, maybe you wind up with Bush-Cheney, Bush-Kerry, Bush-Paul, Kerry-Paul, Kerry-Cheney, Cheney-Kerry, Paul-Kerry, Paul-Bush, Paul-Cheney, ... or even a totally different pairing depending on how people actually voted!  Maybe you don't like the particular outcome in this instance.  We can't really say for certain who it would be; but whoever it would be, we know that more people would be happier with it than under any other system, and that's really the important thing.

How do you cite the Bill of Rights in the Freeman Constitution?

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States usually gets cited as "The First Amendment" or "The IX Amendment" or something to that effect.  Because our Bill of Rights is incorporated into the document itself and further broken down into lists, the citation is a bit different.  Here are some examples:

"The State shall have no standing to interfere in anyone’s affairs affecting only himself and where none are aggrieved." ~ Freeman Constitution, Bill of Rights, General 3.

"No one shall be compelled to answer a charge where a harm or breach is wanting." ~ Freeman Constitution, Article X, Judicial Procedure 3.

The general style is to cite the name of the document, the article name or number, the section name, and the number it appears in the list.  If through context you already know the document, you can just cite the last part, such as "General 3," or "Judicial Procedure 3," etc.

This is not a hard and fast rule, but is our recommendation.

What does Status 5 mean?

"No one shall be obliged to identify himself to any officer or agent of the government, except in open court where oath or affirmation will suffice to establish his identity; or at the time of voting for or holding of public office, where only the person’s name and eligibility will need to be proved; or as part of a reasonable background check to qualify for government employment or enlistment in the Armed Forces; or in applying for benefits from the public trust wherein certain eligibility requirements shall need to be proved, excluding the exercising of those rights guaranteed by this Bill of Rights; or while within the National Zone." ~ Freeman Constitution, Bill of Rights, Status 5

This is a more explicit protection of privacy, in addition to the general protection of privacy in Security 4.  It specifically limits when a government agent can ask you for identification. 

Why is this important?  Because people have the right to be left alone and to not divulge who they are if they don't want to, particularly to the government who might use that information to try and gain jurisdiction over the person, or to otherwise fabricate evidence against a person for some made up charge.

Those few exceptions listed here are those in which it might be considered reasonable for the government to know who you are.  If you are testifying in court, or if a charge is brought before you, it might be relevant to establish who you are for the purposes of verifying your testimony or avoiding false accusations.  If you are in court, the metric of oath or affirmation under penalty for purjury should be sufficient for that purpose.  Anything else seems rather redundant.

At the time of voting for or holding public office, identification serves to ensure that only citizens are participating in the political process and that foreigners are not, so as to protect domestic interests and avoid foreign influence on State politics.

If you work for the government, you are being placed in a position of trust and given certain powers, so vetting you beforehand seems like a wise decision.

Given that any benefit conferred by the State must be paid for by taxpayers, and that the State exists to protect the interests of its citizens, vetting a person before they receive benefits from the government helps limit expenditures.  This means things like cash payments, not use of public utilities or things of that nature.

Granted, the way this system is designed, there shouldn't be any welfare schemes to begin with, but we believe in overengineering just to be safe.  We don't want a repeat of giving tax refunds to people who never paid any taxes in the first place.

Lastly, the National Zone is a very narrowly defined region in which the government conducts its business and where the general public rarely has any reason to be, so if you are there, the presumption is that you are an agent of the government or are otherwise engaging in some sort of government business and so it is not unreasonable that you indentify yourself therein.

Of course, merely identifying one's self does not automatically grant jurisdiction in all cases, but it helps to establish certain boundaries.

What constitutes identification?

That would be left up to the legislature most likely, but a few things come to mind as guidelines. 

A copy of one's birth certificate attached to a photo, apostiled by the State; a passport; a notarized affidavit with an attached photograph; the confirmation by two or more witnesses under oath or affirmation; a State-issued passport card; or a State-issued international driver's license (issued on verification of age and citizenship, for use abroad), should each suffice as identification for most purposes.

Other forms might exist if you work for the government or are otherwise engaged with them in some way.

In general, we like to promote the idea of making one's word their bond, but until that becomes popular again, these will suffice.  Anything more than that seems intrusive.

What does "technological augmentation" mean?

"The Senate shall make no law abridging the rights of any living man or woman on account of any technological augmentation to their person." ~ Freeman Constitution, Bill of RIghts, Status 6

This is an attempt at prospective law, accounting for the fact that, as technology improves, there might come a time when the distinction between man and machine becomes blurred.  For instance, in the movie Transcendence, there was great doubt as to whether the protagonist was still human and whether or not he had rights or if destroying him was murder.  Humanity might be forced to ask those very questions in the near future.

This law attempts to err on the side that says: "What was once human is still human, and reserves all its right, until legally dead."  The words "man" and "woman" were chosen specifically here, because a robot that never was human is not automatically endowed with rights, no matter how sentient it might appear, but must first be proven to be a living thing as opposed to mere property before it can be emancipated and declared its own person. 

Likewise, the word "living," is important because a person might die and be reanimated; but what was never alive to begin with, or is not at least currently alive, cannot be said to have rights either. 

Such questions deserve a more thorough examination by science, philosophy, and society as a whole before the law can be properly applied to them.

Do we have a right to bear arms?

Yes!  The right to bear arms for self-defense and for defense against tyranny is one of the most important rights there is, for without it you cannot exercise your other rights except by the permission of someone else.  In that case, your rights cease to become rights and are mere benefits and privileges.

Many people are confused about the issue of the right to bear arms.  They do not understand where it comes from or why it exists, and the wording of the Second Amendment has only added to that confusion.  Many people mistakenly believe the State has the right to restrict or ban the ownership and possession of weapons on account of "public safety."  We have taken great pains to word this right more clearly while still taking into consideration that there may be times when it is lawful to restrict a person's access to fire arms.

Throughout this document, we have also included more express clauses explaining the reasoning for the necessity of a right to bear arms.  It may sound a bit paranoid at times, but as Thomas Jefferson once stated: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

We can more easily forgive a government that is powerless to help us than we can one that enslaves us, which it surely would if we were powerless to stop it.

When can the right to bear arms be suspended?

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, except in cases of felony conviction or mental illness - as determined by competent tribunal - where the public safety may require it." ~ Freeman Constitution, Bill of Rights, Security 2

There are only two instances in which the right to bear arms can be infringed and both of these require passing through the gates of Due Process.

The first is in the case of felony conviction.  Here, a felony refers to some grievous mala in se crime like murder and not a mere mala prohibita crime like drug possession.  In order to make such a restriction to a person's most essential right, that person has to have been accused of a moral crime, indicted, had all the requisite defenses made available to him, been convicted by a jury of his peers based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and for which the crime was heinous enough, or for which he is likely to be a repeat offender, such that a neutral judge deems it prudent at the time of sentencing to restrict his right to bear arms.

Such a restriction would be overturned upon his later acquittal, or upon the serving of some requirement set forth at the time of sentencing, such as a time limit or required action like rehabilitation.

It is important to note that this is NOT the same as gun control.  Gun control is a mala prohibita policy - a general prohibition that restricts the rights of the innocent and of people who are of no real danger to their fellow man.  People who have done no harm and who resolve to continue to live their lives in peace should not be burdened by the arbitrary and sometimes harmful restrictions of their right to bear arms.

The second instance is in the case of the mentally incompetent.  This can mean either someone who is not mentally or physically mature enough to be able to use a gun safely (such as a toddler), or it can mean someone with a biological or mental deficiency that impairs their judgment in such a way that they are an actual danger to others if given a weapon.  In either case, if the person is under the care of a parent or legal guardian, then that person has discretion over whether or not to allow said person to have a weapon, provided they assume responsibility for the consequences. 

Otherwise, before any restriction of rights can be made upon such a person, they must be examined by a medical professional who has been trained to evaluate mental and physical capabilities and risks.  Such results must be brought before a neutral judge who will then evaluate on a case by case basis whether the individual in question poses a danger to others and whether an injunction against them is warranted.

What this does NOT mean is that the government has carte blanche to declare whatever it wants as "mental incompetence," (particularly political views or actions that run against the establishment) but rather must rely on scientifically verifiable evidence to support a case against a person as being mentally or physically unfit to carry or use a weapon safely.

In either case, if a person is adjudged unqualified to bear arms, then their name shall be placed on a publicly available list (public so that people can know they're on it and challenge it if they feel they shouldn't be on there).  If anyone knowingly gives or sells weapons to a person whose name is on that list, they could be liable for any harm that results.

I say "could," because harm might not actually occur and there's no reason to prosecute people for victimless offenses; but if there is a victim, then it seems reasonable for the enabler to bear responsibility for their willful negligence.

That is about as much gun control as a free society could or should tolerate.

What does "probable cause" mean?

Contrary to what many people assume, probable cause doesn't mean, "Whatever the officer thinks" or "because the officer was scared" or "because the officer thought someone looked suspicious."  Probable cause has specific legal meaning.  Probable cause is when the factors of a given situation make it more likely than not that a crime is being, or is about to be, committed.

If the action in question is not actually a mala in se crime (meaning bad in itself), then probable cause does not come into play.  An officer cannot claim probable cause to search your car for you not wearing your seatbelt, for instance, as that is not a mala in se crime, but a mala prohibita crime (meaning bad because someone said so).  You not wearing a seatbelt is not sufficient cause for the officer to search your car without a warrant.  The officer receiving a complaint about a stolen car that looks like yours with a dead body in the trunk is probable cause to search your car.

It also should not be confused with there merely being a possibility of something occuring.  For instance, it's possible that I could win the lottery, it's just not very probable.  It's probable that it will be warm out if it is June in the Northern Hemisphere.  It is possible you could have a dead body in the trunk of your car, but is it probable?  What circumstantial evidence does the officer have to think it is more likely than not that you have a dead body in your car?

Many bad laws have been written because people do not understand the difference between possibility and probability, and many innocent people have suffered as a result of that ignorance.

What is allodial title?

Allodial title means that you own your property and no one else has a superior claim to it than you.  Allodial title is especially relevant in regards to land.  If you have allodial title, then no one, not even the government, can force you to do anything to or with your property.

If the government has the authority to issue and collect property taxes, then it stands to reason that you don't actually own your own property.  If you did, you could exclude the government from collecting revenue against it without a prior contract or injury. 

We have included a right of presumption of allodial title as a defense against such taxes and against eminent domain.  What this means is that the government cannot just come in and take what it wants from you, but must first go before a neutral judge and make a case for why it should be allowed to take your property or make you do something with it or not do something with it, the way anyone else would have to.

For more on allodial title, see this page.

What is "substantive public benefit"?

"In all eminent domain cases, no property may be taken for public use without just compensation and preliminary proof of substantive public benefit; and if, after being awarded the property and holding it for seven years, the State cannot demonstrate substantive improvement to the property, or that its usage has been more beneficial in public hands than it was in private hands, it shall forfeit all claims to said property, and the same shall be returned to its former owner, or otherwise sold at public auction if it cannot be reasonably returned." ~ Freeman Constitution, Bill of RIghts, Security 8

Eminent domain is the legal process by which the government can take private property for public purposes, or otherwise set restrictions for the property.  Occassionally, it serves beneficial functions, but more often than not it is a burden on property owners.  In the United States, the government must pay compensation for such action, but only in certain instances.

The difficultly of eminent domain centers around its wording.  We believe in the primacy of the individual and of individual property rights, but we also recognize that there are certain instances where a single person could be acting quite unreasonably in their resistence to the public.  For instance, say a man owns a stretch of land a hundred acres long.  The government wishes to build a road that extends across a small portion of property that is fairly remote and rarely used.  Supposing the man is stubborn and refuses to allow the road to be built, even for a trillion dollars and he doesn't much care about the opinions of his neighbors either because he has enough land to be self-sufficient.  Without violating his property rights, the government would have to build around his land at great expense to the people both in terms of taxes and in time traveling around the land rather than across it.  Technically, it would be a violation of the man's rights to build on his land; but in practical terms, let us suppose that he will barely even notice the difference except if he went well out of his normal way.

The right of eminent domain is a right granted to the government (it is not inherent as many people seem to think).  In this case, in order for the government to infringe upon the man's land, the government would not only have to pay the man but would also have to demonstrate "substantive public benefit."  What this means is that the government must prove that the public good in fact outweighs the private good and thus a violation of property rights is justifiable.  Moreover, the government has a time limit with which to act towards that public good before losing its right of eminent domain and having to reapply itself.

This is significantly different from the system in American wherein the government does not have to first prove that the public benefit outweighs the private benefit.  As a result, many people have had their homes and businesses displaced by essentially worthless bridges to nowhere.  If the land had remained in private hands, it could have been put to better use. 

Another common example of how eminent domain is used is in regards to environmental issues or in imposing building restrictions where damage to other structures could occur.  For instance, restricting construction of buildings on a beach in a hurricane zone where debris could be torn off and hurled into surrounding buildings; or limiting construction over historical monuments.

We understand the practical realities of these types of situations and so have worded this provision in such a way to account for them.  We feel that by requiring the government to first prove its case instead of just taking what it wants, this will be a more just resolution.

What does Security 10 mean?

"In all intellectual property cases - particularly those pertaining to artificial or patented forms of life – the burden of proof shall lie with those claiming infringement; and the State shall protect defendants against unreasonable claims, particularly in such cases wherein said property shall have moved onto the property or land of a defendant, or otherwise into his possession, by natural means rather than as a result of inducement or provocation on the part of the defendant." ~ Freeman Constitution, Bill of Rights, Security 10

Unlike the Constitution of the United States, the Freeman Constitution grants the government no power to issue patents.  The reasons for this are complex and may seem controversial, but the end result is in fact greater personal liberty.  The main issue with intellectual property is fraud and ensuring that authors, inventors, discoverers, and creators receive acknowledgement and recognition for their original work; but in many countries it has become about rights of exclusivity.  Those hurt most by intellectual property are people who had the same or similar idea as someone else but didn't have time, money, or resources to get to the patent office first and so where is their reward?

When it comes right down to it, only about 3% of patents ever make any money!  And given that it costs upwards of about $10,000 and a year of waiting before even finding out whether your idea is patentable or not, that is really a huge barrier to entry.  Knowing that, do patents still seem like they protect and encourage innovation?  Or do they seem like a protectionist racket?

That said, even though the State has no power to issue patents, it doesn't mean there won't still be lawsuits for other things like theft.  Take for instance the case of Monsanto in which the wind blows their patented GMO seed crop onto a neighboring organic non-GMO farmer's land and Monsanto sues the farmer for intellectual property wherein the farmer did nothing wrong - at least not knowingly.  If anything, you could make the case that Monsanto was the one who committed negligence and ruined the farmer's crop since now he can no longer claim his crops are truly organic without testing them all.

Given that we do attempt to craft prospective laws, there may come a day when biotechnology is such that scientists are creating whole life forms that move on their own.  Maybe they make a clone monkey from stem cells that wanders onto someone's land and the owner of that land shoots it, thinking it's a wild animal.  The scientists sue for property damage, but here again you could argue the scientists were negligent in letting their property loose.  It doesn't even have to be a biotech lifeform, per say.  It could be their dog.

These are the types of suits that Security 10 seeks to mitigate.  We believe in making use of your property in such a way that it does no harm to others, and that the State should not be used as a tool for abdicating personal responsiblity.