Entrance &Exit 

We are as ready as we can be.  I expect the plan to fall apart at least once before it succeeds. 

I wrote nearly identical emails to JD Vance, JB Pritizker,  DIck Durbin, Tammy Duckworth , Danny K Davis and Sonya Harper last night. They know I will be flying this week. 

From their perspective, the  letter acts as both my entrance and exit to the field of theoretical subatomic physics.  It opens the doors to constitutional history and the law.  Continued on History section 

For years I have been asking people to listen. Now that I have people's attention, I have to stop giving new advice. It's too easy to tell people more than I know, for a good cause and with the best of intentions.  I cannot know how fast people can change even if they want to.  Theory is horribly imprecise without measurements.  

I know why humans circle power like moths circle flames.  That is why, I need an exit plan before I stand at a podium.  

My goals before exiting

1. Correct common misunderstandings of things I have written 

2. Local community police have supremacy over any agency patrol of public areas in their communities unless …

3. Heller overturned. Defense strategy returned to communities unless …

4. Humans have jurisdiction over themselves unless …

Unless the precepts are unconstitutional (includes natural laws of physics) or the reasoning process for decision making is significantly flawed. 

5. Citizens United overturned; political funding, even for national parties, must be local.

6. Government funded viable Change Management plans exist and are staffed.

Things to Avoid

7. Avoid running for any elected office because ...

8. International politics because ...

Because learning how these work requires mistakes I have not yet made. I do have sufficient ignorance to ask questions.  

For example,

1. What is the actual goal under all of the tactics and strategy?

2. How do you know?

3. How can we know?

How could we not know that the US had succeeded in using social contract theory? After a review of the available literature,  they consistently omit the children and other chattels.  Because they skip over those humans that cannot give consent for themselves, we must have just assumed slave owners would not use this theory.   Perhaps they also assumed that only the good communities protect themselves from governments.  

The New York Times on Feb 2nd ran an article about section 1983.  Per their report, Akhil Reed Amar (a young professor) wrote a 96 page article for the 1987 law review concluding that state legislatures could authorize lawsuits against federal officials. Apparently there is also 1971 case Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents.  This is an example of the federal government during civil war reconstruction protecting itself against social contract sovereignty for the benefits of freed slaves.  

Logic of consent authorizations

The founding philosophers would ask if the actual actions taken were part of the agent's official duties. Only the official duties have authorization.  If detaining suspects for questioning and avoiding homicidal actions are both part of the agent's official duties that is what the agent is both responsible for doing and authorized to do.  The rules of engagement for an agent can be altered by an authorized supervisor with the responsibility for establishing rules of engagement.  

Before the agent could be tried, the active rules of engagement and the actual actions would need to be compared.  For ICE agents, the president and the vice president are purely political (when the Senate has not declared war).  They cannot grant authority.  The cabinet secretary can respond to a Presidential request and authorize homicidal actions when that is within the legislated responsibility for the situation in question. 

Logic of removal

The entire chain of command could reasonably be asked to confirm and explain if the actual actions were compliant with their understanding of how agents are expected to act fulling their responsibilities.  If the House doesn't like what it hears they can impeach and force a trial upon the Senate.  If the Senate doesn't like what it hears, they can rescind their confirmation with a simple majority vote (the same majority required for confirmation). 

Civil Right to Sue

It is not just the state legislature that can approve suing the federal government. It's every local jurisdiction as well.  When local jurisdictions were run by the KKK this was a problem for enforcement of amendments. 

Individuals cannot sue without a governing body's approval within the hierarchy of a state's or territories government.  Individuals are flawed and a civil body controls the right to sue. The governing body speaks for the sovereign of the jurisdiction and sovereigns are greater than agencies.   This was defense in depth for slave owning communities. 

Paradox 

The philosophers in the age of reason thought reason could triumph over all.  They believed that paradoxes were both avoidable and unconstitutional violations of the spirit of the law.   Unfortunately, only with modern technology could a federal government effectively address abuses from the backlash to the 13th amendment.  All viable actions were somewhat wrong. 

How do I know?

It's a complicated system based on a small set of rules. There is only one coherent solution.

How could it be proven?

It could take a few years, but rule based computers coupled with AI  could exhaustively test every possibility that is compliant with history. 

Change management is a term used by project managers to smooth the transition between the old system and the newly installed system.   Generally the client, who pays for the effort, and the customers and employees ,who need to change how they interact with the  system, are not the same people.  Normally, there is a communication campaign, training and extra training for designated points of contact.  The goal is to get the benefits of the new system as quickly as possible even if some people need to be replaced. 

This situation is different and more complicated.  All of the people are individually customers and also constituents of multiple groups. Each of these groups is a client.  

The groups,  which are entirely subordinated to an official governmental organization in the US, have a jurisdiction in which they are sovereign and have supremacy over all agencies of government.  This was the perfect plan to protect the founders from abolitionists. They did not foresee the states breaching the contract over their geographic jurisdiction and amendments.  

In theory (remembering that theory without measurements makes horrible numerical estimates), passing only the 14th amendment would have been enough to end US institutional slavery. This alternative history would still permit slaves of persons born outside of the US.   

The point of the above is that resistance to change has the authority of the 10th amendment supporting it. Groups of adults can refuse their consent to be governed within their jurisdiction. For lasting change the consent needs to be feeling given and worth the exchange. 

(Almost) Value Added Tax for Civil Liberties

Civilization is a collection of civil societies which includes allies and enemies.  Each civil society has a social contract where individuals consent to be governed by the group in exchange for the "blessings of liberty" that only a civil society can provide.  Because we conflate natural human rights with the liberties all citizens have we devalue the benefits of government. 

The value of the benefits of government comes from the benefits of living in our society and could easily justify paying for reliable governance if we only knew how much that was worth. 

We should try to figure out how much it is worth every time we pay our taxes.  How to do that will require somebody to figure it out and share their thinking.  Fortunately, the government does not require a fair exchange to operate reliably and effectively.   It's often more effective if some of the "vat" goes directly to some needy person in the same home as the wage earner.  I suspect that when the numbers are tallied generational deficits in "vat" payments exceed the government's deficit.   I assume collection will be resisted vigorously as grief strikes the richest of us. 

Stages of Grief

I know that some people will go through the stages of grief when the change is entirely to their benefit due to how our brains physically work.   I have no ability to measure the public reactions. I have no experience as a behavioral psychologist. 

This situation is different and more complicated.  While the base 10 log of the benefits are greater than the Lods there's no reliable prediction of the next few months. 

I misinterpreted the injunction court case, making it unnecessarily complex. I mistakenly believed Supreme Court opinions reflected objective reality, but they are merely interpretations of the law. Since the law is a human construct, it's irrelevant for historical fact-finding in lower courts.

What should this mean?

Every legal jurisdiction in the country could temporarily bar ICE from its area if a judge determines it's more likely than not that James Madison succeeded. The opposing counsel would not be able to use Supreme Court opinions to the contrary. They would instead need to argue that the founding fathers were failures and see how that plays with the MAGA base.

Instinctively for experienced lawyers this will seem wrong.  However because Madison succeeded the municipality has sovereignty which gives the people of the jurisdiction supremacy over federal agencies. 

Politically

For most jurisdictions, ICE is not an active threat. I don't know if a judge would even hear a case for an injunction that appears moot. However, politicians know how to count, and the message would get through in February instead of waiting for November.

All Supreme Court justices are human. They would feel the history they dreamed of making if they ever got a seat on the court.

The best time to share this plan with MAGA is shortly before court cases are filed and just after they have any recourse. This gives them more time to recognize they are going to lose. The time spent strategizing to minimize loss adversely impacts their planning for new communities to abuse.

Two days ago The Guardian quoting Senator Bernie Sanders wrote,  we need to offer a vision for the future.   Perhaps he meant the future of the next 4 years. Or maybe he meant the future where the cycles of history repeat.  It's in our nature that the cycles will repeat. 

I have  pages for  theAmericaProblem,  Physics,  Government stopping ICE abuses and short term stabilization. But not for this longer term vision of the future.  It was a gap in high level strategy. 

Ten years ago I would not have guessed that some people need live heroes so badly that they would prefer anti-heroes over a life without any live heroes at all.   That was before, I had read any Carl Jung or an NIH report on AI.  Now, I still am not a trained psychologist but it makes sense that this should be the case. 

Somebody needs to run into the burning building or towards gun fire.  Live human heroes are not optional for the future. 

I have written my suggestions for how these essential people could fit into repeating cycles of history.  But stabilization needs to come first, so that page does not show in navigation yet.  But there's a path for everyone to take.